 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Harbison, Docket No. 29,597,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of defendant under the Fourth Amendment because he was standing in a group of people with an individual known to have just completed a drug sale and when the officers arrived defendant hurried away in the opposite direction.
|
|||||
| State v. Bomboy, Docket No. 26,687,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no warrant and no exigent circumstances, under N.M. Const. art. II, § 10 the officer's seizure of methamphetamine from defendant's vehicle following defendant's arrest outside the vehicle was unlawful. The fact that the officer saw the methamphetamine in plain view did not justify the warrantless seizure.
|
|||||
| State v. Rowell, Docket No. 26,429,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State failed to present sufficient evidence to support an exception to warrant requirement of N.M. Const. art. II, § 10, for weapons seized from defendant's vehicle after an inventory. Weapons were not within defendant's immediate control when seized, and the mere existence of weapons in vehicle on school grounds did not create inherent exigency.
|
|||||
| State v. Weidner, Docket No. 26,351,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer's seizure of methamphetamine from defendant's vehicle was justified under exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement because the drugs, in an elastic band on the visor, were within defendant's reach and immediate control and defendant was in control of the vehicle.
|
|||||
| State v. Scurry, Docket No. 26,197,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court failed to connect defendant's offenses of homicide by vehicle when driving while intoxicated and great bodily harm by vehicle while in intoxicated to intent or recklessness to support a finding that offenses were serious violent offenses under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-2-34. The case was remanded.
|
|||||
| Hamberg v. Sandia Corp., Docket No. 26,559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly dismissed an employee's negligence claim on the ground that a company was immune from tort liability under N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 52-1-6(D) and (E), 52-1-8, and 52-1-9 where the company was met the special employer test, even though the general contractor for whom he worked was an independent contractor.
|
|||||
| Luna v. Lewis Casing Crews, Inc., Docket No. 29,768,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lower court properly upheld a workers' compensation judge's decision awarding a worker a modest, partial lump-sum payment of his future permanent partial disability benefits even though his Delgado claim against the employer was pending, subject to the employer's right to reimbursement in the event the Delgado claim proved successful.
|
|||||
| Salazar v. Torres, Docket No. 29,476,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A worker's intentional tort claim against his employer was barred where he had received a lump-sum payment representing a settlement of all future benefits, aside from medical, that were left open in his workers' compensation case and that election allowed the workers' compensation judge to determine that the cause of his injury was accidental.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
