 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Burke, Docket No. 27,109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Approach to processing Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) registrations by county sheriff's department was consistent with statutory mandate; it routinely processed SORNA registrations between 1:00 and 4:00 every week and Court of Appeals of New Mexico did not find that impermissibly narrow window of opportunity for registrants.
|
|||||
| Bird v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Docket No. 26,688,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Policy provided additional uninsured motorist coverage on family's newly acquired car and could be stacked. Trial court awarded costs and denied attorney fees, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-1, as the insurer did not act in bad faith. Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 56-8-4, pre-judgment interest was denied and insurer was not liable for 15% post-judgment interest.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Educ. v. Thunder Mt. Water Co., Docket No. 30,020,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Eminent domain principles of U.S. Const. amend. V and N.M. Const. art. II, § 20 required a school district to pay a water company the full value of property associated with a water line extension because deducting a contribution in aid of construction from the condemnation award would deprive the company of property without just compensation.
|
|||||
| State v. Romero, Docket No. 30,000,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals properly found that bail bond company's bail bonds should not have been forfeited in favor of the State of New Mexico because violations of the conditions of release other than a failure to appear were not grounds for forfeiture under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-3-2, which controlled over a conflicting bail bond form, N.M. R. Ann. 9-303A.
|
|||||
| State v. Maes, Docket No. 25,910,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on a N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-31-23 (2005) charge was improperly denied where the evidence was sufficient to show that she had an ongoing connection to the house where the drugs were found, but was insufficient to infer that she was in constructive possession of drug residue found in a bedroom.
|
|||||
| Nellis v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., Docket No. 26,530,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied as untimely a motion to intervene pursuant to N.M. R. Ann. 1-024 because it was filed 16 months after the intervenor became aware of the pending litigation, the intervenor did not necessarily have a right to intervene, and the intervention would have prejudiced the existing parties.
|
|||||
| State v. Fernandez, Docket No. 26,124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the armed robbery charge, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-12(B), where a jury could have concluded that the manner and character of use of the BB gun satisfied the definition of a "deadly weapon;" even if the BB gun was unloaded at the time, there was no way for the victim to know this.
|
|||||
| State v. Montes, Docket No. 25,883,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by allowing State to ask defendant whether he would be surprised that six people, who did not testify, had all referred to defendant as their source for drugs for impeachment purposes because the statements were hearsay under N.M. R. Ann. 11-801, as they were offered to prove that defendant had previously distributed drugs.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
