Irwin v. Lamar

11 Citing cases

  1. Perez v. Gallegos

    87 N.M. 161 (N.M. 1975)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that just because the appeal lacked merit did not necessarily mean that appeal was taken or pursued in bad faith solely for purposes of delay and harassment entitling the plaintiff to attorney fees

    A generalized attack is not enough. Cooper v. Bank of New Mexico, 77 N.M. 398, 423 P.2d 431 (1966); Giovannini v. Turrietta, 76 N.M. 344, 414 P.2d 855 (1966); Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400 (1964). Thus, the trial court's findings are binding upon this court on this appeal.

  2. Alfred v. Anderson

    86 N.M. 227 (N.M. 1974)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that where the district court findings are not attacked on appeal as inaccurate, incomplete, or inadequate, they are binding on appeal

    On appeal, errors claimed must be specifically stated and argued. Petritsis v. Simpier, 82 N.M. 4, 474 P.2d 490 (1970); Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400 (1964). The petition for a writ of prohibition was grounded in a claimed class action, the class being "all other Indians whose places of employment are upon the Navajo Indian Reservation, and who are or might be subjected to writs of garnishment issued by Respondent Anderson."

  3. State v. Riggsbee

    85 N.M. 668 (N.M. 1973)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that even when prosecutor exceeds proper bounds, burden is on defendant to object

    All of the foregoing matters were neither supported by points in the brief nor were they argued by counsel on appeal. This court held in Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 813, 399 P.2d 400, 401 (1964): "* * *.

  4. Petritsis v. Simpier

    82 N.M. 4 (N.M. 1970)   Cited 12 times

    An error claimed must be specifically stated and argued. Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400 (1964). As to the note, it is true that upon proof of the execution of a note consideration is presumed, but this may be rebutted by evidence which shows or tends to show lack of consideration. Hutchison Lumber Co. v. Boney, 72 N.M. 194, 382 P.2d 525 (1963).

  5. Wilson v. Albuquerque Board of Realtors

    81 N.M. 657 (N.M. 1970)   Cited 17 times
    In Wilson, the former rule stated "[I]n involved cases where the reason for the summary judgment is not otherwise clearly apparent from the record, the trial court should state its reasons for granting it in a * * * recital in the judgment."

    Certainly appellant's compliance with subsection 14 is approaching the minimum. See Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400 (1965). There are many issues of fact presented by the complaint and answer, some of which may well depend upon the statements and depositions included in the 800 page transcript.

  6. Heron v. Conder

    77 N.M. 462 (N.M. 1967)   Cited 7 times

    We will not correct a harmless error. Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400. Next, the appellant challenges Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 3, and 25 of the Decision.

  7. State v. Weber

    76 N.M. 636 (N.M. 1966)   Cited 23 times
    Noting that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error

    Mitchell v. McCutcheon, 33 N.M. 78, 260 P. 1086. See also Rhodes v. First Nat. Bank, 35 N.M. 167, 290 P. 743; Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400. Finding no error, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

  8. Scott v. Brown

    76 N.M. 501 (N.M. 1966)   Cited 30 times
    In Scott v. Brown, 76 N.M. 501, 416 P.2d 516 (1966) the trial judge wrote "refused" on one of the instructions, and signed his name below it.

    An appellate court does not correct harmless error. Irwin v. LaMar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400. Plaintiffs' third point is that they were prejudiced because six of the seven forms of verdicts submitted to the jury were on onionskin paper and in part carbon copies, whereas the form of verdict in favor of defendants was in ribbon copy on bond paper.

  9. Bagwell v. Shady Grove Truck Stop

    104 N.M. 14 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that in reviewing a district court's factual determination for substantial evidence, “[t]he appellate court ... disregards all evidence and all inferences unfavorable to the [district] court's result”

    Id. See also Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400 (1964). The trial court proceeded properly by adopting appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  10. City of Farmington v. Sandoval

    90 N.M. 246 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 22 times
    Explaining that in a de novo review, the reviewing court does not review “the correctness of the proceedings” in the lower court

    The consequence of the rule violation is that we will not review the evidence; rather, we accept the findings of the trial court. Perez v. Gallegos, 87 N.M. 161, 530 P.2d 1155 (1974); Lacy v. Holiday Management Company, 85 N.M. 460, 513 P.2d 394 (1973); General Services Corp. v. Board of Com'rs, 75 N.M. 550, 408 P.2d 51 (1965); Irwin v. Lamar, 74 N.M. 811, 399 P.2d 400 (1964). The trial court found that 1) defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and 2) defendant failed to give immediate notice of an accident.