Legal Opinion · Dissent
Silva v. State
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided November 3, 1987No. 16798Published
1DissentStowers, Justice
I dissent.
The majority has misconstrued both the application of the Duran Consent Decree and the application of the Tort Claims Act.
It is important to lay to rest once and for all that the Duran Consent Decree by its terms can have no application to any cause external to the Duran case.
It is equally clear that the issues involving the Tort Claims Act were properly construed and applied by the court of appeals in its opinion which I adopt, and I direct that said opinion of the court of appeals be printed in its entirety as part of my dissent.
No. 9267
Court of Appeals of New Mexico.
Dec. 4, 1986.
O…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Methola v. County of EddyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
- C & H Construction & Paving Co. v. Citizens BankNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979
- Begay v. StateNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
- Anchondo v. Corrections DepartmentNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1983
- Smialek v. BegayNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1986
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.