AI Generated Opinion Summaries
Decision Information
Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,587 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,587 documents
Decision Content
This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- The case involves an appeal by the Republican Party of New Mexico and several individuals against Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Mimi Stewart, and Javier Martinez in their official capacities within the state government. The specific events leading to the case are not detailed in the decision.
Procedural History
- Lujan Grisham v. Van Soelen, S-1-SC-39481, August 25, 2023: The Supreme Court ordered that upon the filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 12-201 NMRA, the Court of Appeals certify the matter to the Supreme Court under Rule 12-606 NMRA (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: The Republican Party of New Mexico and several individuals argued against the defendants, but the specific arguments are not detailed in the decision.
- Defendants-Appellees: Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Mimi Stewart, and Javier Martinez, in their official capacities, defended against the plaintiffs' claims, but the specific arguments are not detailed in the decision.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court’s Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence.
- Whether the district court’s Conclusions of Law are supported by its Findings of Fact.
- Whether the district court committed any legal error.
Disposition
- The ruling of the district court is affirmed (para 7).
Reasons
-
Per C Shannon Bacon, Chief Justice, with concurrence from Justices Michael E. Vigil, David K. Thomson, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora:The Supreme Court, after considering the briefs and oral arguments, concluded that the district court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were supported by substantial evidence and that no legal error was committed. The decision to affirm the district court’s ruling was made under the discretion provided by Rule 12-405(B)(1) and (2) NMRA, opting for a nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion (paras 2-6).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.