New Mexico Court of Appeals· 3/21/1969
State v. Leyba
Citations
- 453 P.2d 211
- 80 N.M. 190
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding acts are sufficient to constitute CDM if they tend to cause or encourage the minor to act in a manner injurious to the minor’s morals
- holding acts are sufficient to constitute CDM if they tend to cause or encourage the minor to act in a manner injurious to the minor's morals
- noting that “we may only speculate as to why the jury acquitted [the] 13 defendant” of one of the charges against him and that this Court’s “business is to 14 review the verdict of conviction”
- CDM does not depend on the end result, but on the defendant’s acts
- CDM does not depend on the end result, but on the defendant's acts
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wood, Spies, Oman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court· 1970-11-23· cited 9,465×
- State v. FernandezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1994-04-14· cited 113×
- State v. HobsonIdaho Supreme Court· 1974-06-12· cited 74×
- State v. RoperNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2001-10-30· cited 58×
- State v. MascarenasNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1972-07-28· cited 53×
- State v. RuizNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1995-01-20· cited 47×
- State v. TrevinoNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1991-07-02· cited 38×
- State v. TrevinoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1993-11-10· cited 34×
- State v. MadrigalNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1973-07-25· cited 32×
- State v. CuevasNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1980-09-29· cited 31×
- State v. LuceroNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1994-09-21· cited 28×
- State v. RogersNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1969-04-04· cited 24×
- State v. ElliottNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1975-08-11· cited 23×
- State v. BrownNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1992-03-09· cited 22×
- State v. JiminezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1976-09-28· cited 22×
- State v. CorbinNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1991-02-21· cited 21×
- State v. HendersonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1993-11-10· cited 20×
- State v. RomeroNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1985-10-17· cited 19×
- State v. BentNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2013-12-04· cited 18×
- State v. GilbertNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1982-04-22· cited 17×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. ParisNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-05-16· cited 64×
- State v. GutierrezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1967-10-27· cited 64×
- State v. McKinleyNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1949-02-11· cited 62×
- State v. MillerNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-03-14· cited 53×
- Apodaca v. United States. Sandman v. United States. Beasley v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1951-05-21· cited 44×
- Lucero v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1967-11-27· cited 38×
- State v. ArmijoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1931-03-24· cited 38×
- State v. StoneOregon Supreme Court· 1924-05-20· cited 33×
- Raburn v. NashNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1967-09-01· cited 32×
- State v. BuchananNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-03-14· cited 29×
- State v. OrtizNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1967-05-08· cited 26×
- State v. RhodesNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1967-03-13· cited 21×
- State v. SextonNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1968-01-12· cited 15×
- Tremblay v. OverholserDistrict of Columbia· 1961-12-08· cited 15×
- State v. BrownNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1927-12-31· cited 15×
- State v. McCroskeyNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1968-09-06· cited 14×
- State v. RobinsonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1967-10-02· cited 14×
- People v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1956-10-29· cited 12×
- State v. DodsonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1960-06-07· cited 10×
- State v. PeelArizona Supreme Court· 1965-11-12· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.