Skip to main content

Stockard v. Hamilton

Citations

  • 25 N.M. 240
  • 180 P. 294

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Under the statute law of this state (Laws 1917, c. 18), the salary of a district attorney may be garnished in the hands of the disbursing officer of the state. P. 242</p> <p>2. A case in which final judgment has been entered Is not a “pending case,” within the constitutional provision (article 4, § 34), which states that “no act of the Legislature shall affect the right or remedy of either party, or change the rules of evidence or procedure, in any pending case.” P. 244</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating the general rule that a case is no longer considered pending for purposes of Article IV, Section 34 after a final judgment is filed
  • garnishment provisions enacted after final judgment apply to subsequent garnishment proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eoberts, Parker, Raynolds

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.