Ruiz v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge
I concur with Point II of the majority opinion on strict liability and otherwise I dissent.
A. Rule 56(c) which relates to summary judgment should be amended by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not issued an order nor amended Rule 56(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to require trial courts to make findings, state specific reasons or explain the basis upon which summary judgments are granted. See, Combs v. Fantastic Homes, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Civ.App.1979). Indictments against the model form of summary judgment were issued over a third of a century ago but district…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PrenticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Brown v. KeillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1978
- Hayes v. Michigan Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Scott v. RizzoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1981
- Denver & Rio Grande Railway v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.