Tabet Lumber Co., Inc. v. Romero

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that where the facts are undisputed, whether a particular payment is a \final payment\ as defined by statute is a question of law
• stating that where the facts are undisputed, whether a particular payment is a “final payment” as defined by statute is a question of law
• stating that 3 where the facts are undisputed, whether a particular payment is a “final payment” as 4 defined by statute is a question of law
• holding that court had “‘the inherent authority to reconsider its interlocutory orders, and it is not the duty of the [district court] to perpetuate error when it realizes it has mistakenly ruled.’” (citing Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 749 P.2d 1105, 1107 (N.M. 1988
• when facts undisputed and only legal interpretation remains, summary judgment may be properly granted
• “The grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order, and, therefore, the district court could properly reconsider its previous ruling notwithstanding the fact that a different judge had issued that ruling.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).