Legal Opinion
Ronald A. v. State Ex Rel. Human Services Department
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided July 16, 1990No. 19122PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SOSA, Chief Justice.
“[W]hen notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). That statement by the Supreme Court aptly summarizes the treatment accorded petitioner in the case before us. He asks us to reverse the court of appeals, which held that the Human Services Department was not required to serve petitioner's attorney with notice of the Department’s action to terminate petitioner’s parental rights, when the attorney was representing him in a…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. HillNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- Ronald A. v. State ex rel. Human Services DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1990
3Cited by15 opinions
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Mafin M.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
- Matter of Parental Rights of James WhNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1993
- Franco v. Carlsbad Municipal SchoolsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001
- G.E.W. Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Johnston Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1993
- In Re the Conservatorship & Guardianship of PulverNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.