Eturriaga v. Valdez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a definite time period for commencement of an action, where created by the same statute creating a right to contest an election, “is a limitation on the substantive right the legislature has created”
• “[T]he Election Code has no remedy in a situation such as this, where a primary election contest has not been resolved before the voting in the general election.”
• \It is not the province of this Court to invalidate substantive policy choices made by the legislature.\
• “It is not the province of this Court to invalidate substantive policy choices made by the legislature.”
• mootness doctrine applied where general election had been held and contestants did not avail themselves of expedited procedures or seek extraordinary relief from appellate court
• mootness doctrine applied where general election had been held and contestants did not avail themselves of expedited procedures or seek extraordinary relief from appellate court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Gunaji v. MacIas
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 2001-09-12· cited 136×
• Wilson v. Denver
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1998-05-29· cited 63×
• State v. Vest
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 2021-05-27· cited 53×
• Mieras v. Dyncorp
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1996-08-16· cited 32×
• Mott v. Sun Country Garden Products, Inc.
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1995-05-26· cited 24×
• State v. Valles
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2004-08-19· cited 19×
• State v. House
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1996-03-28· cited 16×
• Payne v. Chatman
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1997-04-28· cited 16×
• State Ex Rel. Haragan v. Harris
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1998-10-21· cited 7×
• Williams v. Heard
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 2017-09-13· cited 6×