 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DeFlon v. Sawyers, Docket No. 28,898,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of action with prejudice was remanded to state court because res judicata did not bar the claims for intentional interference with a contract and civil conspiracy when the employees, who allegedly acted outside the scope of their authority, were not in privity with the employer, defendant in the dismissed federal suit.
|
|||||
| Espinosa v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., Docket No. 25,278,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 55-9-104(k), the annuity payments flowing from the decedent's Structured Settlement Agreement were payments arising out of tort and were therefore excluded from Article 9 of the UCC. Anti-assignment clause was enforceable as written; the assignment to the creditor was void. Equitable estoppel did not apply.
|
|||||
| Sam v. Estate of Benny Sam, Docket No. 28,426,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court reversed court of appeals' judgment that wrongful death action filed against a person who worked for an Arizona governmental entity was governed by N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8 because accident occurred in New Mexico. The district court should have concluded that two-year statute of limitations in New Mexico Tort Claims Act applied.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, Docket No. 28,471,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indigent defendant represented by pro bono counsel was entitled to apply for and receive expert witness fees from the New Mexico Public Defendant Department. The right to the basic tools of an adequate defense was not contingent upon the appointment of Department counsel; it was inherent under U.S. Const. amend. VI and N.M. Const. art. II, § 14.
|
|||||
| Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., Docket Nos. 25,556; 25,557; 25,558,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in dismissing company president's claims against banks as time barred as, inter alia, complaint contained no allegations whatsoever that would have supported a discovery rule argument, nor was he entitled to invoke the equitable tolling rule applicable to class action plaintiffs as he was a defendant in derivative class action.
|
|||||
| Murken v. Solv-Ex Corp., Docket No. 25,468,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a class action, a non-settling chief executive officer (CEO) had no standing to object to a settlement entered into by class members because he did not demonstrate plain legal prejudice; the settlement did not strip the CEO of a legal claim or cause of action, nor was he a member of the class, despite owning corporate shares.
|
|||||
| Murken v. Solv-Ex Corp., Docket No. 25,459,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court was not required to hold evidentiary hearing prior to making certification decision, where it reviewed evidence and heard counsel and appellants failed to show prejudice; thus, it had jurisdiction to certify class and did not abuse its discretion in finding that class action was superior method of adjudication.
|
|||||
| Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council of Albuquerque, Docket No. 24,026 consolidated with No. 24,027 and No. 24,042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because revision of sector plan was legislative act by text amendment rather than map amendment, the "change or mistake" rule did not apply and a partnership was not entitled to due process because there was no quasi-judicial act; further, substantial evidence supported city's determination that amendment did not result in downsizing of property.
|
|||||
| Starko, Inc. v. Gallegos, Docket No. 25,042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pharmacies and pharmacists sued defendants that included government executives of New Mexico Human Services Department, seeking reimbursement under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 27-2-16 (1984), trial court erred in not granting executives qualified immunity, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, because no procedural due process claims was raised.
|
|||||
| State v. Padilla, Docket No. 24,990 Consolidated with: Docket No. 24,999,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-12, did not apply to sentencing and because a habitual offender proceeding addressed sentence enhancement, a defendant held in prison in another state did not have a right under the IAD to final disposition of habitual offender status within 180 days of serving a request.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
