Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sandoval v. Valdez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sandoval v. Valdez Anchor | green | “would result in a violation of fundamental principles of justice of new mexico.” | 3 |
| 2 | Estep v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance | green | “reiterated the abandonment of the common law rule of interspousal immunity” | 3 |
| 3 | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ballard Ex Rel. Ballard | green | “a question of contract interpretation, not one of fundamental interests,” | 3 |
| 4 | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ballard Ex Rel. Ballard | green | “whether limiting or completely excluding benefits based on familial status, violate public policy and fundamental principles of justice.” | 3 |
| 5 | Demir v. FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY | green | “whether limiting or completely excluding benefits based on familial status, violate public policy and fundamental principles of justice.” | 3 |
| 6 | Miera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance | green | “the question of whether application of the law to undisputed facts supports summary judgment in a case seeking to benefit from uninsured motorist coverage is a question we review de novo.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.