Legal Opinion
Santistevan v. Centinel Bank of Taos
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided September 4, 1981No. 13397PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASLEY, Chief Justice.
Santistevan brought an action for damages based on fraudulent deprivation of real property against Centinel Bank of Taos (Bank), Quintana and Romero. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that Santistevan was not a real party in interest since he did not own the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari, and we affirm in part and reverse in part.
We discuss: (1) whether a motion to dismiss can be converted into a motion for summary judgment without affording the opposing party ten days notice…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Brown v. O'KEEFESupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- First National Bank of Jacksboro v. LasaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Klebanow v. New York Produce ExchangeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Dallas Cabana, Inc. v. Hyatt Corporation and Donald N. PritzkerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- John E. HOOPES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX, INC., D/B/A Retail Credit Company, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Matter of Adoption of DoeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1984
- Headley v. Morgan Management Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
- McCauley v. Tom McCauley & Son, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1986
- Seeds v. LuceroNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
- XORBOX, ETC. v. Naturita Supply Co., Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.