 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Garza, Docket No. 29,764,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A magistrate court judge's removal from office pursuant to N.M. Const. art. VI, § 32 was appropriate because his illegal drug use and abuse of his position violated numerous canons of judicial conduct, N.M. R. Ann. 21-100, 21-200, 21-300, 21-500, and constituted willful judicial misconduct.
|
|||||
| Pincheira v. Allstate Ins. Co., Docket No. 26,044,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's orders requiring unprotected discovery of documents that the insureds requested were reversed and the case was remanded to reevaluate the insurer's assertion of trade secret privilege as to the documents in manner consistent with the burdens established by the language of N.M. R. Ann. 11-508.
|
|||||
| State v. Devine, Docket No. 26,392,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following mistrial, State's amendment adding new charge to information renewed defendant's right to peremptorily excuse the presiding judge under N.M. R. Ann. 5-106, and right to excuse presiding judge attached upon filing of amended information; however, defendant's notice of excusal was untimely as it followed preliminary hearing on new charge.
|
|||||
| State v. Gutierrez, Docket No. 29,286,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's comment during opening arguments concerning defendant's refusal to submit to a polygraph test was an improper comment on defendant's silence, in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The error was not harmless because defendant's credibility was crucial, as he testified at trial and his only defense was denial.
|
|||||
| State v. Kirby, Docket No. 29,257,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant committed fraud, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-6, where the victim was the owner of the website he designed, 17 U.S.C.S. § 201(a), and any change was conditioned upon payment, which the victim never received; defendant locked out the victim from the website and access to his copyrighted web pages, although the victim owned the website.
|
|||||
| State v. Lucero, Docket No. 25,579,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal case was properly dismissed under N.M. R. Ann. 5-604(B) because it was not tried within 6 months after the latest applicable triggering event; because the case had been remanded but never closed, the State's filing of a new, identical case did not create a new 6-month deadline for purposes of Rule 5-604(B).
|
|||||
| Baber v. Desert Sun Motors, Docket No. 26,624,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a worker sought 100 percent of his attorney fees under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 52-1-54(F)(4) after making an offer of judgment that the employer refused, the case should not have been dismissed as moot, notwithstanding the employer's voluntary payment, because the proper mechanism to effectuate the fee-shifting provision was a compensation order.
|
|||||
| In re Locatelli, Docket No. 29,508,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While supreme court found judge acted negligently, both in charging two city attorneys with indirect contempt and in failing to dismiss case promptly, that conduct was not grounds for discipline under N.M. Const. art. VI, § 32; if he had believed attorneys had violated rules of professional conduct he could have reported them to disciplinary board.
|
|||||
| Maes v. Audubon Indem. Ins. Group, Docket No. 29,624,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, June 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 59A-29-7, the immunity provision of the New Mexico Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 59A-29-1 to -9, did not apply to the insurer as Servicing Insurer of New Mexico Property Insurance Program (NMPIP). Insurer was not agent of NMPIP and, accordingly, was not immune from insured's suit on that basis.
|
|||||
| State v. Cole, Docket No. 26,381,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, June 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who had marijuana in his pocket when he was brought into a county jail could not be found guilty under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-22-14(B) for bringing contraband into jail because he did not enter the jail voluntarily, notwithstanding that he could have avoided the charge by admitting his drug possession to a booking officer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
