 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benavidez v. City of Gallup, Docket No. 29,160,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by refusing to give pedestrian's requested jury instruction, N.M. R. Ann. 13-1318, because the case was a trip and fall case, the pedestrian was a visitor, and the evidence at trial supported that theory. Because N.M. R. Ann. 13-13-17 did not fully state the applicable law, both instructions should have been.
|
|||||
| State v. Emmons, Docket No. 25,823,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2 for chasing down and confronting a pair of repo men at gunpoint who had repossessed his truck, the self-defense, defense of property, and citizen's arrest instructions were properly denied because, inter alia, he acted unreasonably.
|
|||||
| State v. Moya, Docket No. 29,919,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior Utah misdemeanor conviction of attempted forgery, which would have been classified as a felony in New Mexico, could be used to increase defendant's sentence under N.M. Stat. § 31-18-17(D)(2).
|
|||||
| Cain v. Champion Window Co., Docket No. 26,104,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, a window company, was proper in the purchaser's action alleging that the employer was liable for its employee's actions because the work done for the purchasers was on the employee's day off; the installation of a stove for the purchasers did not benefit the employer's interests.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Richardson v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Nominating Comm'n, Docket No. 30,254,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.M. Const. art. VI, §§ 35 and 36, the Governor's mandamus petition was granted to require an appellate judges nominating commission to convene and solicit additional qualified applicants for a judicial district vacancy in order to provide the Governor with a bona fide choice of qualified and recommended applicants.
|
|||||
| State v. Almanza, Docket No. 25,929,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction in a drug case was reversed because defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a chemist was allowed to testify by telephone; an exception to the face-to-face confrontation requirement was not met based on a chemist's busy schedule and the inconvenience of rescheduling the case.
|
|||||
| State v. Lizzol, Docket No. 30,019,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was acquitted when the metropolitan court excluded the breath-alcohol-test card for lack of foundation and determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment barred the State's appeal, even if the evidentiary ruling was egregiously erroneous.
|
|||||
| State v. Martinez, Docket NO. 30,122,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State had laid a sufficient foundation under N.M. R. Ann. 11-104(A) for admission of breath-alcohol-test card because the arresting officer presented hearsay evidence that he saw a Scientific Laboratory Division of the Department of Health (SLD) sticker on the machine indicating that it was certified by the SLD when he conducted the test.
|
|||||
| State v. Verdugo, Docket No. 25,534,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because detective did not inform defendant that an attorney would be provided to him if he could not afford one and that any statements he made could be used as evidence against him, his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination was violated when trial court admitted his statements that he attempted to use victim's ATM card.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
