 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Walters, Docket No. 24,585 and Docket No. 24,566 and Docket No. 25,110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' confrontation clause rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated when statements they gave to police following the baby's death were admitted into evidence and defendants did not testify; the error was not harmless because their statements interlocked in material respects.
|
|||||
| State v. Pablo R., Docket No. 25,179,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because campus service aides had no idea what child might have had in his possession upon searching him, or why the search might have revealed evidence of violation of the law or school rules, they did not have a reasonable suspicion to justify the search of child at its inception and trial court did not err in granting child's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| State v. Stefani, Docket No. 24,477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-31-20(A)(1), 30-28-2, and 30-31-25.1(A) were improper because defense counsel had established that the failure to allow a continuance would prejudice defendant by not allowing adequate time to explore or prepare an adequate defense.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Las Cruces Police Dep't, Docket No. 24,883 and Docket No. 25,488,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting police department summary judgment for citizen's failure to name negligent employee where New Mexico Tort Claims Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-4-1 to -27, did not require naming of individual public employees as defendants; in second case, citizen was not required to produce evidence of identity of public employees.
|
|||||
| State v. Upchurch, Docket No. 26,436,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State did not timely file its notice of appeal of the order granting defendant's motion to dismiss for the violation of his speedy trial rights, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Inadvertence on the part of the State's counsel was not an exceptional circumstance excusing the timely filing under N.M. R. Ann. 12-201(A)(2).
|
|||||
| Inquiry Concerning a Judge (Ramirez), Docket No. 29,552,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State judge was given public reprimand for violations of N.M. R. Ann. 21-300 by failing to remain courteous while maintaining order in his courtroom, which prevented an attorney from making full objections for record. The judge also lent prestige of his office in violation of N.M. R. Ann. 21-200 to help his son who had been given criminal citation.
|
|||||
| Cobb v. State Canvassing Bd. , Docket No. 29,095,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 2005 amendment to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-14-15(B) was unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to state canvassing board therefore, 2001 version of statute was still effective and under that version, board had no authority to require a deposit of the full estimated costs of the election recount and recheck, $ 1.4 million, before starting.
|
|||||
| Inquiry Concerning a Judge (No. 2004-011), Docket No. 29,265,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court judge violated New Mexico's Code of Judicial Conduct when he failed to recuse himself after he was assigned to preside over case where defendant was charged with drug-related felonies because he had a personal relationship with defendant's counsel and was aware that presiding over the case could give appearance he was not impartial.
|
|||||
| Farmington Police Officers Ass'n Commun. Workers, Local 7911 v. City of Farmington, Docket No. 24,972,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in granting summary judgment to two police officers who claimed their CBA provided that they could arbitrate city's decision to reassign them from a drug task force to patrol duty; CBA itself did not eliminate genuine issues of material fact as to arbitrability of the dispute, and officers had not come forward with extrinsic evidence.
|
|||||
| ACLU of N.M. v. City of Albuquerque, Docket No. 24,320 consolidated with Docket No. 24,805,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Albuquerque Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act registration provision requiring registration for offenders with convictions of kidnaping or false imprisonment, without any sexual component, violated due process, N.M. Const. art. II, § 18, because the city's stated purpose was not furthered by including non-sexually motivated crimes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
