State v. Hurst

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party, having acquiesced in theory of the case as presented by the court’s instructions to the jury, cannot, after the verdict, shift his position and change the theory of the case
• holding that once a party acquiesces in the theory of the case as presented by the jury instructions, that party cannot, after the verdict, shift its position and change the theory of the case
• stating party, having acquiesced in theory of the case as presented by the court’s instructions to the jury, cannot, after verdict, shift his position and change the theory of the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Fleetwood Retail Corp. of NM v. LeDoux
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 2007-06-26· cited 68×
• American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Cleveland
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2012-11-21· cited 40×
• State v. Franco
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2004-08-10· cited 23×
• State v. Diaz
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1932-08-25· cited 18×
• Scott v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1955-11-14· cited 10×