Legal Opinion
New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 1999No. 23239PublishedCited by 121 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MINZNER, Chief Justice.
{1} In their cross-appeal from a district court decision denying them attorney fees, Plaintiffs New Mexico Right to Choose/NAR-AL and others (collectively “Plaintiffs”) urge this Court to adopt an additional exception to our rule that litigants ordinarily are responsible for their own attorney fees. We decline to do so in this case. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision. We award no costs on appeal.
I
{2} In the district court, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the Secretary of the Human Services Department. Plaintiffs alleged that the…
2Cases cited66 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Trustees v. GreenoughSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by121 opinions
- Dover Historical Society, Inc. v. City of Dover Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
- Crutchfield v. New Mexico Department of Taxation & RevenueNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2004
- State v. FuentesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2009
- Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2009
- In Re New Mexico Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
116 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.