Kent Nowlin Construction Co. v. Gutierrez
New Mexico Supreme Court · 1983-01-14 · cited 24×
The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the personal representatives of a deceased worker against his employer, Kent Nowlin Construction Company, after the worker died in a job-related accident. The employer's workers' compensation carrier had paid medical and funeral expenses but denied benefits to the worker's dependents because they resided in Mexico, and the jury awarded $175,000 in the tort action. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the verdict, holding that the New Mexico Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries and deaths. The court reasoned that the Act's plain language abolishes all other causes of action for covered employees, including wrongful death claims, and that the statutory bar on benefits to non-resident dependents does not create an exception allowing alternative remedies.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
Matter of Martinez
New Mexico Supreme Court · 1982-12-29 · cited 14×
The case concerned numerous complaints of judicial misconduct against Fourth Judicial District Judge Donaldo A. Martinez, including countermanding orders from another judge for the immediate transport of convicted prisoners to the state penitentiary, barring the district attorney from performing statutory duties in children's court cases, and issuing a temporary restraining order on behalf of his son without required notice, hearing, or compliance with procedural rules. The Judicial Standards Commission investigated, held hearings, and recommended permanent removal from office for willful misconduct under article VI, section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of guilt based on clear and convincing evidence of the three principal charges but imposed a penalty of temporary suspension for sixty days along with forfeiture of salary and payment of costs, rather than removal. Many additional publicized allegations were dropped for lack of proof and were not considered. On rehearing, the court denied the motion and confirmed the suspension starting January 17, 1983.
criminal lawprocedure
Three Rivers Land Co., Inc. v. Maddoux
New Mexico Supreme Court · 1982-09-28 · cited 89×
In Three Rivers Land Co., Inc. v. Maddoux, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and fraud seeking damages after an earlier lawsuit for specific performance of land purchase and lease contracts was dismissed. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss based on res judicata, but on interlocutory appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed. The court held that res judicata barred the second action because both cases arose from the same transaction involving the land contracts, and a judgment in equity precludes a subsequent action at law for damages from the same facts, with no applicable exception for the prior denial of amendment.
propertyprocedure
NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY COM'N v. Ferguson
New Mexico Supreme Court · 1982-09-27 · cited 1×
This case involved a lawsuit by individuals injured or killed in a highway accident against the New Mexico State Highway Commission and the State, alleging negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the road. The defendants sought dismissal for lack of timely written notice as required by the Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that an accident report prepared by the State Police did not satisfy the "actual notice" exception to the written notice requirement for the Highway Commission or the State. The court reasoned that the statute requires actual notice to the specific governmental entity alleged to have caused the harm, rather than to any state agency, to fulfill the purpose of allowing the potentially liable agency to prepare for possible litigation.
torts & liabilityprocedure
State v. Chavez
New Mexico Supreme Court · 1982-09-27 · cited 32×
In State v. Chavez, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and unlawful carrying of a firearm in a liquor establishment. The trial court, on its own motion, granted a new trial on the first three counts under Rule 45, citing the interest of justice after noting conflicting evidence and receiving a juror letter, but without specifying the exact grounds. The Court of Appeals held that the State lacked standing to appeal as it was not an aggrieved party under the New Mexico Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State may appeal an order granting a new trial because it has a strong interest in enforcing a lawful verdict, and that the trial court must fully set forth the grounds for its sua sponte ruling under Rule 45(d) to permit effective appellate review for abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for the trial court to enter an order stating its reasons, after which the parties could appeal.
criminal lawprocedure
United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.
New Mexico Supreme Court · 1982-09-15 · cited 12×
In United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., the case involved a dispute over the validity of a 1973 uranium supply agreement, prior New Mexico court judgments rejecting arbitration, and a subsequent California arbitration award favorable to General Atomic. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Santa Fe district court's ruling that voided the arbitration award and upheld the earlier judgments for United Nuclear. The court held that the U.S. Supreme Court's Felter decisions did not preclude state-court proceedings on the merits or application of res judicata to determine there was no enforceable arbitration agreement, that the Federal Arbitration Act did not bar voiding the award, and that supplemental declaratory relief was available under New Mexico law even pending appeal.
business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power