 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Williams, Docket No. 25,031,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted where he was seized when the officer asked him for his driver's license and the officer had no reasonable suspicion regarding defendant. Prior to the request for the driver's license, the officer did not suspect defendant of any specific misconduct.
|
|||||
| Rehders v. Allstate Ins. Co., Docket No. 25,284,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment entitling a son to stack uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under a corporate commercial auto policy was improper under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-5-301 because the son was not an "insured" under the clear, unambiguous language of the UM endorsement and was not entitled to any UM benefits under the policy.
|
|||||
| Pina v. Gruy Petroleum Mgmt. Co., Docket Nos. 25,219 & 24,960 (consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An agreement allowing for the indemnification of negligence for work performed at an oil well in New Mexico was void as against public policy under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 56-7-2 (1999), despite the fact that such a provision was allowed in Texas, and Texas law applied to the agreement.
|
|||||
| U.S. Xpress, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, Docket No. 29,272,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trucking companies' tax and fee refund suit, district court properly denied class certification because three companies were the only ones to exhaust administrative remedies; only after individual exhaustion by each class member could the district court have jurisdiction pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 7-1-22.
|
|||||
| State v. Rodriguez, Docket No. 28,867,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for DWI, having announced that the jury was discharged, the trial court could correct a verdict form to reflect the true verdict of the jury. There was no double jeopardy violation because the jury remained together in the presence and control of the court and had not been subjected to outside influences or contamination.
|
|||||
| Campos v. Davis, Docket No. 29,422,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two-year statute of limitations in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-4-15(A) (1977) violated due process in a negligence case brought on behalf of an 11-year-old sexual assault victim based on a failure to inform the family of the danger posed by a mother's boyfriend because it was unreasonable to expect the child to meet the limitations requirement.
|
|||||
| N.M. Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, Docket No. 25,610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in finding New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine was incorrect in interpreting N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-14-13(A)(5) as authorizing discipline against licensee for acts of ordinary negligence, and court correctly held that licensee should not have been sanctioned for acts of ordinary negligence arising out of single episode of care.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Pamela R.D.G. (In re Pamela A. G.), Docket No. 29,018 Consolidated with: Docket No. 29,042,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents' due process rights were not violated when trial court admitted child's out-of-court statements concerning sexual abuse even though parents did not cross-examine child because neither parent called child as a witness and trial court adhered to requirements of N.M. R. Ann. 11-803(X) in admitting the statements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
