workable framework (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

workable framework in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Caveney v. Caveneygreen
massappct · 2012 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Caveney v. Caveney, 960 N.E.2d 331, 342 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (noting that “there was no evidence to suggest that the actual amount of distributions made to the wife from the [S]ubchapter[-]S corporations bore any resemblance to the amount of the K-1 income reported by the wife for income tax purposes”); see also § 40-4-7(B)(l) (allowing the district court to award spousal support as may “seem just and proper” under the circumstances of the case); Lovato v. Lovato, 1982-NMSC-052 , ¶ 8, 98 N.M. 11 , 644 P.2d 525 (“It is the duty of the [district] court to make a decision based upon all the fact

2013Caveney v. Caveney, 960 N.E.2d 331, 342 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (noting that “there was no evidence to suggest that the actual amount of distributions made to the wife from the [S]ubchapter[-]S corporations bore any resemblance to the amount of the K-1 income reported by the wife for income tax purposes”); see also § 40-4-7(B)(1) (allowing the district court to award spousal support as may “seem just and proper” under the circumstances of the case); Lovato v. Lovato, 1982- NMSC-052, ¶ 8, 98 N.M. 11 , 644 P.2d 525 (“It is the duty of the [district] court to make a decision based upon all the fact

33
Weisman v. Awnair Corp. of Am.green
ny · 1957 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016Weisman v. Awnair Corp. of Am., 144 N.E.2d 415, 418 (N.Y. 1957).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Lovato v. Lovato green
nm · 1982
2 sentences

2013Caveney v. Caveney, 960 N.E.2d 331, 342 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (noting that “there was no evidence to suggest that the actual amount of distributions made to the wife from the [S]ubchapter[-]S corporations bore any resemblance to the amount of the K-1 income reported by the wife for income tax purposes”); see also § 40-4-7(B)(l) (allowing the district court to award spousal support as may “seem just and proper” under the circumstances of the case); Lovato v. Lovato, 1982-NMSC-052 , ¶ 8, 98 N.M. 11 , 644 P.2d 525 (“It is the duty of the [district] court to make a decision based upon all the fact

2013Caveney v. Caveney, 960 N.E.2d 331, 342 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (noting that “there was no evidence to suggest that the actual amount of distributions made to the wife from the [S]ubchapter[-]S corporations bore any resemblance to the amount of the K-1 income reported by the wife for income tax purposes”); see also § 40-4-7(B)(l) (allowing the district court to award spousal support as may “seem just and proper” under the circumstances of the case); Lovato v. Lovato, 1982-NMSC-052 , ¶ 8, 98 N.M. 11 , 644 P.2d 525 (“It is the duty of the [district] court to make a decision based upon all the fact

32013–2013
Jones v. Murdoch green
nm · 2009
2 sentences

2018Rule 5-302A(F) NMRA Must Be Amended to Conform to the Law {33} In the concluding sentence of our opinion in Jones , we noted that although we had described a workable framework for advance notification to the grand jury of potentially exculpatory evidence, "we also request[ed] that our Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts Committee consider whether rule amendments are needed based upon the procedure we have outlined." 2009-NMSC-002 , ¶ 43, 145 N.M. 473 , 200 P.3d 523 . {34} Our rules committee in response recommended promulgation of an entirely new Rule, 5-302A, which this Court

2018Rule 5-302A(F) NMRA Must Be Amended to Conform to the Law {33} In the concluding sentence of our opinion in Jones , we noted that although we had described a workable framework for advance notification to the grand jury of potentially exculpatory evidence, "we also request[ed] that our Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts Committee consider whether rule amendments are needed based upon the procedure we have outlined." 2009-NMSC-002 , ¶ 43, 145 N.M. 473 , 200 P.3d 523 . {34} Our rules committee in response recommended promulgation of an entirely new Rule, 5-302A, which this Court

22018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11.1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-4-7 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 7-4-2 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 43 (1959–2023) NY 32 (1903–2014) MI 29 (1915–2024) PA 29 (1949–2026) MD 26 (1981–2022) TX 20 (1986–2025) AL 19 (1986–2013) NJ 18 (1934–2022) HI 16 (1917–2020) OH 14 (1985–2014) FL 13 (1970–2017) TN 13 (1966–2011) WV 9 (1980–2024) IN 9 (1969–1984) WI 9 (1928–2025) GA 8 (1982–2017) WA 8 (1982–2020) RI 8 (1994–2023) NV 7 (1987–2023) IL 7 (1990–2022) CO 7 (1981–2019) OR 7 (1955–2019) MN 6 (1913–2018) CT 6 (1968–2009) NM 6 (2013–2018) MA 5 (1968–2012) IA 5 (1966–2021) NC 5 (1973–2016) MS 5 (1987–2018) AR 4 (1987–2026) KY 4 (1966–2021) ME 4 (1972–2023) AZ 4 (1971–2019) ID 4 (1984–2007) LA 3 (1981–2011) DC 3 (1992–2017) UT 3 (1997–2025) VA 3 (1929–2011) MT 2 (2008–2008) OK 2 (1996–2004) DE 2 (1973–2026) AK 2 (1972–1979) MO 2 (1983–2009) WY 2 (1981–1982) KS 2 (1984–1998)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check