IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NM Supreme Court No. ___________________
NM Ct. App. No. 32,982
Second Judicial Dist. Ct. Case DV-12-234 rel DM-12-610
BARRIE DERRINGER
Respondent-Appellee-Petitioner,
vs.
DAVID
DERRINGER
Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent,
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS
Submitted
by:
David
Derringer
Box
7431
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
May 20, 2014
(1) The NM Ct. App. No. 32,982 has violated due process and equal
protection with 2 ½ & ongoing years of malicious prosecution of DV-12-234 &
rel. DM-12-610 knowingly without service of summons and with no waiver of
service of summons, working without jurisdiction or judicial capacity in
criminal harassment, cruel and unusual punishment, deprivation of
Constitutional rights, denial of statutory and case laws, and subjecting David
Derringer to violations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,
13th and 14th Amendments, deprivation of income, and
illegally convicted, sentenced, and executed sentence of “criminal harassment”
against David Derringer without criminal complaint, trial, attorney, jury,
Miranda rights, appeal or other “due process” under violations of “innocent
until proven guilty” and all done in chambers in a “civil procedure” wherein
the NM Ct. Appeals then covered up the illegal acts without “jurisdiction” by
attempting to block appeal, and “re-write” the trial court in “judicial fraud”
claiming the trial court “meant”-“sanctions”
and “civil contempt”, in a “conspiracy”
and “obstruction of justice”. The trial court destroyed parts of the court
record and blocked David Derringer’s appeals, as well as did criminal “robbery”
and “larceny” against David Derringer stealing court pleadings, while Ordering
illegally the clerk not to file David Derringer’s legal pleadings so as to
“obstruct use of a United States court”.([1])
(2) Questions presented for review
[1.]
Whether the New Mexico Supreme Court will abide by Oath and rule under
law that mandates to
“DISMISS” DV-12-234 and rel. DM-12-610 without service of summons and without
waiver of service of summons based on lack of jurisdiction and judicial
capacity over Respondent David Derringer pursuant to the law ([2]) ; OR whether the NM Supreme Court will go along
with and cover up the judicial fraud, public corruption and criminal conspiracy
against David Derringer with mis-use of power without jurisdiction of DV-12-234
so as to continue to deprive Constitutional rights and continue to intimidate
and threaten David Derringer with illegal “convictions” of “criminal
harassment” that never occurred without due process and equal protection, and
in violation of US Code Title 18 Sec. 241, 242, 1503 as a means to stop further
exposure of the public bribery and judicial corruption of the State of NM and violations
of a US Citizen of enabling use of the US Courts under "justice to the rich and the poor"?
[2.]
Whether the NM Supreme Court will endorse, condone, and turn a deaf ear
to the proven underlying criminal acts of sedition and treason by the Petitioner,
Attorney Alain Jackson and the New Mexico justices involved of Commissioner,
Judge Hadfield, justices of the NM Court of Appeals, and proven “bribery”
involved in associated cases CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 of Judge Alan Malott,
with deprivation of Constitutional rights, persecution of cruel and unusual
punishment, criminal acts of destruction of court records, blocking appeals,
corruption of public records, violations of the Federal FOIA (Freedom of
Information Act) and IPRA (NM Inspection
of Public Records Act) criminal larceny, criminal robbery, conspiracy against
rights, deprivation of rights under color of law and obstruction of justice,
and judicial fraud, or properly Order dismissal of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 rel,
without service of summons and without waiver of service of summons and Order
DOJ and FBI investigation of public corruption of the underlying justices and
Petitioner, and attorney involved?
[3.] Whether state judges can act outside
of any jurisdiction or judicial capacity without service of summons and without
waiver of service of summons to mis-use power in jurisdictionally defective
DV-12-234 to persecute David Derringer for a period of 2 ½ years of criminal
malicious prosecution without any prosecution of the “conspirators” and without
any restitution or compensation for ruining the life of David Derringer by the
corruption of the New Mexico judiciary?
[4.]
Whether the trial court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals can violate
the 1st Amendment and violate their own case laws to deny 1st
Amendment rights to post public documents on the Internet as a way to hide
judicial fraud, and whether the trial court or the NM Ct. App. can refuse to
dismiss jurisdictional error and continue to make a judgment of any issues of 1st
Amendment rights in a case without service of summons and deliberately ignore,
circumvent, and disregard lack of jurisdiction of failure of service of summons
and a case without waiver of service of summons where lack of jurisdiction at
any stage of a proceeding is a controlling consideration to be resolved before
going further?
[5.] Whether any judge has
“jurisdiction” of any case or pleading before properly filed with the court,
and whether any judge can Order any court clerk not to file any court pleadings
or papers from a US Citizen in order to block appeals and corrupt and influence,
taint and tamper with the court record, and do so maliciously to cover up and
contain exposure of public corruption of bribery, extortion, ransom, fraud, larceny,
robbery, and criminal acts by the justices involved; all without any
jurisdiction or judicial capacity of a case without service of summons so as to
defeat and block due process and equal protection, and whether the trial court judge
can deny legal filing of court pleadings before she/he only has legal
jurisdiction after such filing, and order the Clerk not to file legal court
pleadings and then conduct criminal larceny and robbery against a litigant to
“steal” all copies of proposed filings being the personal property of the
litigant, under use of intimidation and force, as a way to forge, corrupt, and
taint public records, as a criminal felony under NMSA Section 30 where such
“moral turpitude” is viewed as “robbery is the taking of something against
someone’s will by force or fear” and wherein the court clerks are “ordered” to
conduct robbery against David Derringer by Order to take and keep all copies of
proposed court pleadings not to be returned that are the personal property of
David Derringer, where the criminal law allows people to be held responsible
for the acts of other people if they asked them to do or they conspired with
them to do the criminal act in aiding and abetting and encouraging the criminal
act to happen as “robbery”?
[6.] Whether the NM Ct. App. can pick
and choose “issues” for appeal to block and deny appeal over legal issues by
illegally ruling denial of “forma pauperis” for specific objectionable issues
that expose judicial fraud, public corruption, judicial bribery, destruction of
court records, blocking appeals, and criminal acts against a litigant so as to
taint and corrupt the court record on appeal to hide and prevent exposure of
public corruption, even when the litigant has proven public assistance to
mandate appeal of “all issues” of the underlying trial court by “mandated”
order sustaining “forma pauperis, in mis use of NMRA Rule 1-011 as a way to deprive
14th Amendment and over-ride Constitutional provisions of the 4th,
5th, 13th and 14th Amendments, and defeat
the Constitution Supremacy Clause Article VI and US Code Title 42 Section
1981(a) in order to stop any appeal and cover up the underlying public
corruption of the trial court, and stop a “poor” litigant by holding the “application for free process”
in ransom and extortion to block access to the courts for appeal, and do so in
a conspiracy against rights under the meaning of US Code Title 18 Section 241
and 242?
[7.] Whether any justice has the
undeniable right or jurisdiction in a case without service of summons to
control a litigant without in personam jurisdiction, to defeat the Constitution
14th Amendment, prevent legal court filings, block appeals, distort,
corrupt and taint the court record, destroy court documents, intimidate,
threaten, “convict” of bogus criminal conduct without due process, conduct
criminal robbery and larceny against a litigant, with simple malicious claims
of “vexatious” litigation by simply stating sua sponte that the case and issues
are “frivolous and malicious” as his/her “personal opinion” that can be based in
bribery, abuse of discretion, abuse of power, cover up of public corruption, or
any other coercive motive, as a way to deny Constitutional rights to use of the US court system against any pro-se
litigant at any time and use this “dictatorship” power to defeat all rights of
access or any particular US Citizen to the courts by the hand of one or any
particular justice, so as to keep a litigant from exposing the illegal,
criminal and non-jurisdictional acts of a judge?
[8.] Whether the NM Court of Appeals
can attempt to “re-write” and second guess the intent of a trial court, by
distorting the documents, disregarding the wording of the trial court with use
of other wording than that printed in the trial court documents, and use
“judicial fraud” to corrupt the court records to change the facts for tainting
further appeal, and whether the NM Court of Appeals can legally “represent” a
missing Appellee with litigation from the court judges themselves designed to
protect, oppose and be an advocate of the missing Appellee, and distort the
court record to indicate participation of the Appellee, when the Appellee has not entered the court by way of
filing any pleading, or any “entry of appearance” and wherein the missing Appellee
has no attorney that has filed any pleading or “legal entry of appearance”, yet
in judicial fraud the NM Ct. Appeals indicated participation by a pro-se party
and/or attorney by name that has never entered the court legally?
[9.] Whether the NM Courts can
continue to force judgments against David Derringer without equitable relief
that are designed and executed in “judicial fraud” without jurisdiction in
violation of law? ([3])
[10.] Whether
the NM Court of Appeals can grant a motion for a panel of judges and then allow
only one judge to rule on the issues and disregard the lack of jurisdiction
that prevents any ruling on any issue of the trial court that had no
jurisdiction, creating “criminal judicial fraud” to grant a panel of judges
only to deny such “due process and equal protection” in judicial abuse of the
Appellant?
(3) HISTORY AND FACTS with supporting
authorities:
The
trial court of DV-12-234 never had any jurisdiction, judicial authority or in
personam jurisdiction over David Derringer. David Derringer was never served any
summons for DV-12-234 and never waived service of summons, mandating dismissal
of any actions brought by Barrie Derringer in both DV-12-234 and the fraud basis
of DM-12-610. Illegally, DV-12-234 continued without legal ability and without
court jurisdiction to maliciously persecute and prosecute David Derringer for
ongoing 2 ½ years, illegally taking all 1st, 2nd, 4th,
5th 13th and 14th Amendment rights, depriving
income by illegally denying use and ownership of legal firearms, persecuting
David Derringer for exposing judicial fraud and public corruption on the
Internet under 1st Amendment rights of posting “public court
records” in violations of FOIA and NM IPRA and violations of rights, immunities
and privileges of “freedom of speech” of the 1st Amendment and then
criminally intimidated, persecuted, and punished David Derringer with illegal
“conviction”, “sentencing” and “execution” of illegal sentence of 30 days in
County Jail, without any due process mandated under the 4th, 5th
and 14th Amendments by a “civil court” denying David Derringer any
“criminal complaint”, “trial”, “jury”, “attorney”, “Miranda” rights and other
“due process” for criminal charges and instead concocted these bogus charges,
conviction and sentencing in “chambers” with use of violations of evidence, and
judicial fraud, and used such as obstruction of justice, intimidation and threats
of physical and bodily harm against David Derringer to both cover up the
larceny, robbery, fraud, blocking appeals, destruction of court records and judicial
bribery of Barrie Derringer, attorney Alain Jackson, and all justices involved
in the trial courts and appeals of DV-12-234, DM-12-610, CV-12-1307/CV-12-10816
that included the proven judicial bribery of Judge Alan Malott. The NM Court of
Appeals attempted to illegally block mandated “forma pauperis” appeals of David
Derringer so as to mitigate and hide public corruption and criminal acts of the
underlying justices in a comrade “conspiracy” to defeat Oath and justice at the
expense of the American public and to continue the judicial fraud of these
entire matters that also entail drug cartel monies and money laundering of
converting drug cocaine money into NM real estate and judicial “favors”. Commissioner
Cosgrove/Aguilar denied due process and equal protection to persecute David
Derringer without jurisdiction of lack of service of summons and Judge Alisa
Hadfield knowingly continued this judicial fraud and lack of jurisdiction to
use DV-12-234 in DM-12-610 to grant Barrie Derringer all of David Derringer’s
sole and separate $32,000.00 of inheritance monies, steal the $65,000.00 Chevy 2005
Silverado Dually of David Derringer, allow Barrie Derringer to steal all
community property and hold in ransom against David Derringer a “marital
settlement agreement” that is void and invalid as not signed or agreed to by
either party. As David Derringer exposed the public corruption of the
Commissioner and Judge Hadfield and Judge Malott on the Internet in postings of
legal and public filed court documents, illegal order was issued to stop David
Derringer from use of the Google blogs and the Internet so as to stop exposure
of “judicial fraud” and then Judge Hadfield robbed David Derringer of his
personal property of court pleadings, ordered the court clerk not to file any
court papers of David Derringer and destroyed the David Derringer court record
so as to taint, corrupt, distort and cover up criminal acts against David
Derringer by the trial court’s judicial fraud. Upon appeal, the NM Court of
Appeals, attempted to stop and block David Derringer’s legal appeal by
illegally denying all and portions of the court record, illegally denied
mandated sustaining “forma pauperis” by proven public assistance, and
distorted, re-wrote, and corrupted the actual trial court proceedings and court
record so as to cover up the underlying “judicial fraud” with additional
“judicial fraud” by the NM Court of Appeals, so as to taint the court record to
obstruct and prejudice further appeal. The NM Court of Appeals deliberately
defrauded the Appeal record to indicate that Barrie Derringer was present as
“Appellee” and represented by attorney Alain Jackson, when in fact neither Barrie
Derringer “Pro-Se” or attorney Alain Jackson has ever filed any pleading or
entered in appearance with the NM Court of Appeals or the NM Supreme Court in
any matters involving either DV-12-234 or DM-12-61O and this “judicial fraud”
was intended to cover up the advocate, litigation and protection, presented by
the NM Court of Appeals to oppose David Derringer by the court justices
themselves, when in fact, David Derringer was entirely unopposed in the NM Ct.
App. without present any Appellee, and wherein all law was on the side of the
Appellant and legally forcing the Appeal court to grant all David Derringer’s requests
for relief without contest. Instead, all courts violated all Constitution and
case laws, violated all former decisions of issued, violated “jurisdiction” and
refused to dismiss a defective case so as to continue to persecute and defraud
David Derringer and conducted criminal acts including but not limited to
“perjury of oath”. The more David Derringer has exposed the public corruption
and judicial fraud, the more criminal acts have been taken against David
Derringer against all law and designed to persecute and ruin the life of the
Appellant; against all Constitution, statutes and case laws. The Courts have
tried every means to stop David Derringer by “obstruction of justice” and mis
use of judicial power and criminal acts to affect the “conspiracy against
rights” and “deprivation of rights under color of law”. In the judicial fraud
and proven bribery of Judge Malott in CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 the NM Court
of Appeals blocks the appeal that will address and prove such judicial bribery
and cocaine connections to Mexico cartels by illegally denying “forma pauperis”
even though David Derringer has now presented to the NM Supreme Court two proven
separate Orders granting “forma pauperis” in both trial courts of CV-12-1307
and CV-12-10816, proving “obstruction of justice” and blocking legal appeals by
the NM Court of Appeals justices in “judicial fraud” and “tampering with court
records in illegal denial and deprivation of “forma pauperis” to cover up
judicial bribery and judicial fraud. ([4])
(4) CONSTITUTION;
AND APPURTENANT DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT ([5])
(5)
Argument to allow Writ of
Certiorari:
Pursuant to SCRA Rule
12-502(A) this Petition is both timely and legally filed for Writ or Certiorari
that mandates by law Order to dismiss
entirely DV-12-234 due to law of service of summons and without waiver of
service of summons making jurisdictional defect and fundamental error that
cannot be overcome by “judicial fraud” and mandated dismissal of DM-12-610
bases entirely on the fraud of DV-12-234. This NM Supreme Court is also
mandated under Canon 3(D)(1) to Order a criminal FBI and DOJ investigation of NM
judicial fraud. The Supremacy Clause Article VI has been violated by the State
of NM. United States v.
Colorado Supreme Court, No. 98-1081, 10th USCA; Stoneking
v. Bank of America, 132 NM 79, 43 P. 3d 1089. This case involves issues of substantial public
interest that are ripe for exposure and Supreme Court decisions.
(6) Prayer
for Relief:
DV-12-234 and rel.
DM-12-610 must be dismissed as a matter of law of lack of jurisdiction.
Restitution and compensation is due David Derringer for extreme deprivations of
Civil Rights and Constitutional violations and David Derringer requests of this
court to make restitution of $100,000,000.00 ($100 million dollars) payable to
David Derringer from the Petitioner, attorney Alain Jackson, Commissioner
Cosgrove/Aguilar, Judge Hadfield and the State of New Mexico. ([6])
Respectfully submitted
by______________________________
David Derringer, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
May 20, 2014
I hereby certify that I caused seven (7) true and
correct originals of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari of the NM
Court of Appeals No. 32,982 to be sent on May 20, 2014 for filing to:
New Mexico Supreme Court
Box
848
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct
original of the forgoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari first class prepaid
mail to the following:
Attorney Alain Jackson (not represented in the NM
Court of Appeals No. 32,982, and not representing Barrie Derringer who is also
absent as Appellee even as “pro-se” in NM Court of Appeals No. 32, 982) at:
423 6th St. NW. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
I further certify that I sent a copy of this pleading
to the following agencies:
INTERNAL AFFAIRS/white collar crime
public corruption:
FBI
Headquarters
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
(202) 324-3000
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
(202) 324-3000
By:__________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se, Box 7431, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87194
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NM
Supreme Court No. ___________________
NM Ct. App. No. 32,982
Second Judicial Dist. Ct. Case DV-12-234 rel DM-12-610
BARRIE DERRINGER
Respondent-Appellee-Petitioner,
vs.
DAVID DERRINGER
Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent,
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS
VERIFICATION OF PETITION
I,
David Derringer, being the Petitioner, Pro-Se, do hereby state under oath that
I have written and read the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and all statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and those statements based on
information and belief are true and the authorities cited are in clear support.
I understand that the "ripeness" of a determination of the underlying
actions are paramount under the guidelines of: State ex rel. Collier v. New Mexico Livestock Bd., P.3d, 2013
WL 5288766, N.M.App., September
17, 2013 (NO. 32,191). This Petition involved exposure of
public corruption.
VERIFICATION
STATE
OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY
OF BERNALILLO )
I, David Derringer, being first duly sworn,
upon my oath state that I have knowledge and have read the foregoing Petition and
know the contents thereof, and that the statements contained therein are true
to my knowledge, except for those statements made on information and belief,
which I believe are true.
David
Derringer
SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN to before me on May ____, 2014 by David Derringer.
(Seal)
My
Commission Expires: _________
_______________________________________
NOTARY
PUBLIC
([1]) Undisputed FACTS: Legal service of summons in the Civil
matter of DV-12-234 was never accomplished by the Petitioner Barrie Derringer as well
established in the court record docket. David Derringer only
appeared at the time and place of the hearing due to his own Petition for
Psychiatric Evaluation of Barrie Derringer, and upon such denial of David Derringer’s
own Petition, David Derringer stated for court record that Barrie Derringer’s
Petition for Order of Protection was without “jurisdiction or judicial
capacity” to proceed with no legal service of summons and must be dismissed as
a matter of law in fundamental error. “Jurisdictional defect is absolute” and
cannot be denied or circumvented by any New Mexico court (Constitution 14th
Amendment.) The jurisdictionally
defective DV-12-234 is inexplicably intertwined with DM-12-610 and CV-12-1307
and CV-12-10816. All trial courts, NM
Ct. of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court have since February 21, 2012,
had only one legal option in Case DV-12-234 and rel DM-12-610 entirely based
and intertwined with DV-12-234”; and that is to Order dismissal with prejudice
due to law of lack of service of summons.
([2]) 14th Amendment and State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 312,183 P.2d 845,845 (N.M.
1947); Deerman v. Board of County
Commissioners, 116 NM 501, 864 P.2d 317 (Ct. App. 1993); Trujillo v. Goodwin,
2005-NMCA-095, 138 NM 48, 116 P.3d 839; Abarca
v. Hanson, 106 NM 25, 738 P.2d
519 (Ct. App. 1987); Holguin v.
Elephant Butte Irrigation District, 91 N.M. 398, 575 P.2d 88 (1977); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. V.
Raton Natural Gas Co., 86 N.M. 160, 521 P.2d 122 (1974); Jones v. Suntrust Service Corp.,
Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 256834, 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 772, 56
Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,796, N.D.Ga., October 12, 1990 (NO. CIV.A.1:89CV2903RHH); Hunkler v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 593995,
111 A.F.T.R.2d 2013-764, 2013-1 USTC P 50,190, N.D.Ohio, February 15, 2013 (NO.
1:13-CV-0157); FN10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c) mandates that a
“summons shall be served together with a copy of the complaint.”; Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v. Farino,
960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992); Gehling
v. St. George's Sch. of Medicine, Ltd., 773 F.2d 539, 542 (3d
Cir.1985).; North Penn Gas Co. v.
Corning Natural Gas Corp., 897 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 847 (1990) (citations omitted); Royal
Gist-Brocades N.V. v. Sierra Prods. Ltd., No. 97-1147, 1997 WL 792905,
at *1 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 22, 1997); Friedman
v. Israel Labour
Party, 957 F.Supp. 701, 706
(E.D.Pa.1997); Carterat Savings Bank
v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 142 n. 1 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U .S.
817 (1992); Mid-Continent Wood
Products, Inc. v. Harris, 936 F.2d 297, 60 USLW 2052, 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d
1406, C.A.7 (Ill.), July 03, 1991 (NO. 89-3571); United States v. Mollenhauer Laboratories, Inc., 267 F.2d
260, 262 (7th Cir.1959); Bourgeious
v. Santa Fe Trail Stages, 43 N.M. 453, 95 P.2d 204, 1939 -NMSC- 050,
N.M., October 16, 1939 (NO. 4448); Hammond
v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. of New Mexico, 30 N.M. 130,
228 P. 758, 39 A.L.R. 1490, 1924 -NMSC- 060, N.M., August 06, 1924 (NO. 2974); Omni Capital Intern., Ltd. v. Rudolf
Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 L.Ed.2d 415, 56
USLW 4031, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 691, U.S.La., December 08, 1987 (NO. 86-740); Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree,
326 U.S. 438, 444–445, 66 S.Ct. 242, 245–246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946).
([3]) Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root
Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946); Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire
Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244, 64 S.Ct. 997, 1000, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944),
overruled on other grounds, Standard
Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21
(1976); Jemez Properties, Inc. v.
Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d 157, 160 n. 1 (Ct.App.1979),
cert. denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980).
([4]) Jemez Properties, Inc. v. Lucero, 94 N.M. at 184 n. 1, 608 P.2d at 160 n. 1. ; Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire
Co., 322 U.S. at 246, 64 S.Ct. at 1001.; Moya v. Catholic Archdiocese of New Mexico 107 N.M. 245, 247, 755 P.2d 583, 585
(N.M.,1988).
([5] ) Advance
Opinions, New Mexico Supreme Court,
Vol. 37, No. 44, October 29, 1998; Curtis
v. Curtis, 56 NM 695, 248 p.2d
683 (1952) New Mexico Supreme Court.; Dale
Campbell v. Imogene Campbell, Supreme Court of New Mexico 62 NM 3300,
310 P..2d 266 (1957) rehearing denied
May 13, 1957.; Farmers Gin Company et
al, v. J.A. Ward et al., New Mexico Supreme Court No. 7322, 1964.; Farmers, Inc. v. Dal. Mach. &
Fabricating, Inc., 111 NM 6. 800 P.2d 1063 (S. Ct. 1990) No. 18,916.; Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US
88 (1971) Footnote[ 101] 383 US 787 (1966).; Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. V. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238,
244, 246, 64 S. Ct. 997, 1000, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944).; Heckathorn v. Heckathorn, 77 NM 369, 423 P.2d 410 (1967) New
Mexico Supreme Court.; In Re: the
Estate of George Gushwa, New Mexico Supreme Court No. 30,592.; Jones v. Mayer Co., U.S.
Supreme Court 392 U.S. 409 (1968) No. 645; Kunkel
v. US, 113 S. Ct. 417, 506 US 957, 121 L.Ed.2d 340; Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81
S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 19, 1961.; Merril v. Davis, 100 NM 552, 553 NM Supreme Court 1983 No.
14,769.; New Mexico Supreme Court
Opinion No. 1998-NMSC-031 No. 18,296 consolidated with: No. 19,118
(Sept 8th, 1998).; Olmstead v. United
States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928).; Owen
v. City of Independence, United States Supreme Court 445 US 622 (1980)
No. 78-1779.; Parratt v. Taylor,
451 U.S. 527, 101 New Mexico Supreme Court 1908, 68 P.Ed.2d 420 (1981). ; Potomac Ins. Co. v. Torres, 75
NM 129, 401 P.2d 308 (S. Ct. 1965) No. 7,633; Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd.
Partnership,507 U.S. 380,113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed. 2d 74(1993). ; Ponder v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, New Mexico Supreme Court No. 26,254 October 23,
2000.; Prei, Inc. v. Columbia
Pictures 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 123 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1993).; Ruis v. US, 113 S. Ct.
985, 506 US 1055, 122 L.Ed.2d 137; Supreme
Court 214, 139 L.ed.2d 148.; State
v. Carbajal, Supreme Court of New Mexico No. 26,829 2002; State v. Baca, Supreme Court of
New Mexico No. 23,343 1997; Standard
Oil Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S. Ct. 311, 50 L.Ed.2d 21
(1976).;Tucker v. Outwater,
118 F.3d 930 cert denied 118 S. Ct. 562, 522 US 997, 139 L.Ed.2d 402.; Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root
Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S. Ct.
1176, 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447 (1946).; US
v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267, reh.den.113 F.3d 1253, cert. denied 118 United States v. Guest, 383 US
745 (1966); United Nuclear v. General
Atomic Co., 96 NM 1155, 629 P.2d
231 (1980) appeal dismissed 451 US 901,
101 Supreme Court 1966, 68 L.ed 2d 289 (1981).
([6]) 11A Charles
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure
2948.1 (2d.ed 1995); Suster v. Marshall, 149
F.3d 523, 533 (1998). ; State v.
Cochran, 112 N.M. 190, 192, 812 P.2d 1338, 1340 (Ct. App. Cert denied
112 N.M. 308, 815 P.2d 161 (1991); Hughes
v. Dyer, DC Mo. 1974, 378 F. Supp. 1305.
No comments:
Post a Comment