Legal Opinion

In Re the Conservatorship & Guardianship of Pulver

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 4, 1994No. 13617PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CHAVEZ, Judge.

Gale Pulver (Pulver) appeals from the trial court’s judgment naming his daughter, Karen Brininstool (Brininstool), as his guardian and conservator of his estate. On appeal, Pulver asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; erred by not disqualifying Brininstool’s attorney; failed to follow mandatory procedures in the guardianship proceeding; and erred by failing to set aside the final judgment as to the conservatorship. Other issues raised in the docketing statement but not briefed are deemed abandoned. See State v. Fish, 102 N.M. 775, 777, 701 P.2d 374, 376…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State v. FishNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Carter v. . BeckwithNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. State v. WrightNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1972
  5. Sundance Mechanical & Utility Corp. v. AtlasNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Roy D. Mercer, LLC v. ReynoldsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Green Valley Mobile Home Park v. MulvaneyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Atkinson v. Stateline Hotel Casino & ResortCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2001
  4. N.P. v. M.E.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API