Kruskal v. Moss
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DONNELLY, Judge.
{1} Plaintiff Martin Kruskal (Martin) and his son, Third-Party Defendant Kerry Kruskal (Kerry), appeal from a judgment determining that their claims against Defendant Richard Moss (Moss) in a foreclosure action were “exactly equal” to Moss’ counterclaims and cross-claims for setoff. Appellants contend that a number of the trial court’s findings were not based on substantial evidence or were erroneous as a matter of law, and that certain evidence was improperly excluded by the trial court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
{2} This case…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Price Ex Rel. MoyaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1984
- Kirkpatrick v. Introspect Healthcare Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1992
- Green v. General Accident Insurance Co. of AmericaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1987
- State Ex Rel. Human Services Department v. ColemanNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1986
- Walker v. L.G. Everist, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Chavez v. S.E.D. LaboratoriesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2000
- State Ex Rel. State Highway & Transportation Department v. City of Sunland ParkNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
- El Paso Field Services Co. v. Montoya Sheep & Cattle Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2003
- Kruskal v. MossNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
- Baca v. BacaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.