Jewell v. Seidenberg

52 Citing cases

  1. Javis v. Board of Education of the School District

    227 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 1975)   Cited 58 times
    In Javis, this Court established a prophylactic rule of reversal in cases where a trial court denies a proper request for a standard jury instruction.

    421 S.W.2d 255, 259. The New Mexico standard was enunciated in the case of Jewell v Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120; 477 P.2d 296; 49 ALR3d 121 (1970). The New Mexico Supreme Court determined that its own harmless error court rule and the history behind the adoption of its Uniform Jury Instructions barred it from following the Missouri presumption of prejudice standard.

  2. Kennedy v. Dexter Consolidated Schools

    129 N.M. 436 (N.M. 2000)   Cited 54 times
    Affirming this Court's reversal of attorney fees based on a lodestar because counsel failed to supply the district court with any time records

    An error is harmless unless the complaining party can show that it created prejudice. See Brooks v. K-Mart Corp., 1998-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 6-7, 125 N.M. 537, 964 P.2d 98 (concluding that a modification of jury instruction on store's duty to visitors adequately instructed jurors); Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 124, 477 P.2d 296, 300 (1970) (concluding that failure to give appropriate Uniform Jury Instruction was not reversible error under the circumstances); Gallegos v. New Mexico Bd. of Educ., 1997-NMCA-040, ¶ 37, 123 N.M. 362, 940 P.2d 468 (holding that refusal to tender Uniform Jury Instructions in an action brought under Tort Claims Act was not reversible error);Thorp v. Cash (In re Ferrill), 97 N.M. 383, 392-93, 640 P.2d 489, 498-99 (Ct.App. 1981) (refusing to reverse without the probability of a different verdict in the absence of the error). We compel the reversal of errors for which the complaining party provides the slightest evidence of prejudice and resolve all doubt in favor of the complaining party.

  3. Brooks v. K-Mart Corporation

    125 N.M. 537 (N.M. 1998)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that a modification of jury instruction on store's duty to visitors adequately instructed jurors

    Rule 1-051(D). If the current, amended version of UJI 13-1318 applied in this case, we would ask whether the amended version of the UJI improperly characterized the law of this State as it applied to the facts of this case and whether it was necessary and proper for the trial judge to modify the amended version of UJI 13-1318. Because we so recently amended UJI 13-1318 to conform to current New Mexico law, and absent findings by the trial court justifying departure from the UJI, we would likely agree that the trial court should have given the amended UJI without modification. See Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 123, 477 P.2d 296, 299 (1970) (stating that "failure to give a mandatory instruction constitutes error"). Though likely error, such a modification of a UJI would not necessarily require reversal.

  4. Thomas v. Gilliam

    774 P.2d 462 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining that, where OUJI contains a pertinent applicable instruction, Oklahoma trials court must use the instruction unless the court determines that the instruction does not accurately state the applicable law

    The decisions from those jurisdictions could have provided the majority with some helpful insight. Not too recently, the Supreme Court of New Mexico was called upon to examine that state's uniform instructions in an analagous context in Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 477 P.2d 296 (1970). In Jewell, the issue was what effect the failure to use a uniform instruction had on the appellant's trial.

  5. Vigil v. Miners Colfax Medical Center

    117 N.M. 665 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that jury instructions must "fairly present the issues and the applicable law"

    On appeal, it is the appellant's burden to show that the instruction given was erroneous and prejudicial. See Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 124, 477 P.2d 296, 300 (1970). Plaintiff argues that the duty of the proffered specialist instruction misled the jury in two ways: (1) that Defendant should be held to a lower standard than a general practitioner, and (2) that the jury could only consider the testimony of general surgeons on the issue of malpractice.

  6. Gonzales v. Sansoy

    103 N.M. 127 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 35 times
    Holding an award for punitive damages must be supported by an award of compensatory damages

    McCauley does not answer the question of consequences. Defendant asserts that where there is a mandatory instruction, the applicable rule is that reversal is required if there is the slightest evidence of prejudice. Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 477 P.2d 296 (1970); see also Adams v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 97 N.M. 369, 640 P.2d 475 (1982); Collins v. Michelbach, 92 N.M. 366, 588 P.2d 1041 (1979). Plaintiff would avoid the holding in Seidenberg, arguing that Seidenberg applies only to Uniform Jury Instructions, and the mandatory instruction in this case appears in the Evidence Rules.

  7. Torres v. El Paso Electric Co.

    127 N.M. 729 (N.M. 1999)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that "the jury shall not be instructed on independent intervening cause for a plaintiff's alleged comparative negligence"

    Having determined that it was error for the trial court to give UJI 13-306, we must address whether the error requires reversal. See Rule 1-061 NMRA 1999 (requiring prejudice to substantial rights of a party in order to constitute reversible error); cf. Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 124, 477 P.2d 296, 300 (1970) ("[T]he appellant has the burden of showing that he is prejudiced by an erroneous instruction."). As a general matter, however, we need not address whether the use of UJI 13-306 in pending cases is sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal when the doctrine of independent intervening cause would otherwise be applicable.

  8. Montoya v. Torres

    113 N.M. 105 (N.M. 1991)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that "[a]lone, the lack of consideration may not be a suspicious circumstance," but that in combination with other suspicious circumstances that made a gift unlikely, it might be considered

    Although the evidence may not have been substantial to support finding number 27 concerning a value attached to the subject property, we deem any error in this regard to be harmless. See Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 124, 477 P.2d 296, 300 (1970) (supreme court does not correct harmless error). The refusal by the court to accept any of Frank Jr.'s requested findings of fact is regarded on appeal as a finding against the party.

  9. First Nat. Bank in Albuquerque v. Sanchez

    112 N.M. 317 (N.M. 1991)   Cited 37 times
    Concluding that an incorrect statement of the law on an important aspect of damages constituted reversible error

    Deviation from required uniform jury instructions is reversible error if the appellant can show that he was prejudiced by the erroneous instruction. Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 124, 477 P.2d 296, 300 (1970). Here, the incomplete instruction was an incorrect statement of the law in that it omitted an important limitation on the recovery of damages in contract actions.

  10. Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.

    111 N.M. 670 (N.M. 1991)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 11 must be supported by particularized findings of misconduct

    This court does not correct harmless error. Jewell v. Seidenberg, 82 N.M. 120, 477 P.2d 296 (1970). Accordingly, our review of the summary judgment orders against appellant concerns whether the district court correctly ruled there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning the 1955 deed and the deed was fraudulent as a matter of law.