 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Munoz, Docket No. 27,945,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Custodial interference conviction was affirmed because the erroneous definitional instruction did not amount to reversible error, when defendant's conviction for custodial interference meant that the jury found defendant guilty of both "taking" interference and "failure to return" interference.
|
|||||
| State v. Roybal, Docket No. 24,897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under N.M. Const. art. II, § 14 and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-14, venue was proper in Santa Fe County because trafficking by possession with intent to distribute was a continuing offense which occurred in each county through which defendant traveled while in possession of drugs. Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing the charges against defendant.
|
|||||
| Cadena v. Bernalillo County Bd. of County Comm'rs, Docket No. 25,381,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded because county board failed to make required findings as to whether landfill was in crucial area as defined by County Groundwater Protection Policy and Action Plan (GPPAP) and district court erred in holding that GPPAP map alone controlled that determination and that record supported a finding that landfill was in a crucial area.
|
|||||
| Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. McRostie, Docket No. 25,432,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-14, insurer's Santa Fe action was deemed continuation of Bernalillo County action and was not barred under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8. N.M. Loc. Dist. Ct. R. 1-306(E) did not result in disallowance of insurer's motion to amend. Under N.M. R. Ann. 1-015(C), proposed amendment of adding corporation would not be futile.
|
|||||
| State v. Patterson, Docket No. 24,853,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First officer did not have individualized suspicion that defendant passenger was violating open container law, and second officer did not articulate any specific concern with regard to defendant driver. Thus, no individualized suspicion justified detention of defendants, and, under Fourth Amendment, their motions to suppress were improperly denied.
|
|||||
| Celnik v. Congregation B'nai Israel, Docket No. 24,833,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of rabbi's wrongful termination claims was proper under church autonomy doctrine because church operations and the selection of church ministers were purely ecclesiastical concerns and protected from civil interference under First Amendment. Also contract claims were barred by collateral estoppel because they were resolved in arbitration.
|
|||||
| State v. Paul G., Docket Nos. 25,090 & 25,321,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sanctions were imposed on appellee, a juvenile, after he entered plea to conspiracy to commit second-degree murder and aggravated battery. Indeterminate sentence could not be imposed because agreement was not a sentencing cap, and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-24(A) did not authorize commitment for indeterminate time.
|
|||||
| State v. Romero, No. 24,389,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statement of a victim, who did not testify at defendant's trial due to her death, to an officer at crime scene was not testimonial under Crawford decision, but her grand jury testimony, her statement taken by a police officer at a police station, and her statement to a sexual assault nurse examiner were testimonial for Sixth Amendment purposes.
|
|||||
| State v. Clemonts, Docket No. 23,549,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of conviction for felony child abuse, evidence was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction, pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-6-1(A)(3) and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-6-1(D)(1), because defendant was acquitted of DWI, and misdemeanor traffic offenses did not expose defendant's child passengers to substantial risk.
|
|||||
| Ulibarri v. State Corr. Acad., Docket No. 29,045,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When analyzing hostile environment claims under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-1 (1969) et seq., based on the statute of limitations in 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(e)(1), the New Mexico Supreme Court adopted the continuing violation analysis. An employee's claim was meritless because the actions were not severe or pervasive.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
