Legal Opinion · Dissent

O'HARE v. Valley Utilities, Inc.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 18, 1976No. 1843Published

1DissentSutin, Judge

I dissent, not out of sympathy for the defendant, but out of love for those principles of law which govern class actions under old Rule 23(a), amended in the federal rules in 1966. The innovation of class actions in New Mexico will cause serious problems until Rule 23(a) is amended by the Supreme Court. Trial courts and lawyers need guidance in class actions, complicated by large groups of class members, principles of intervention, res judicata, statutes of limitation, evidence, jury trials and the large expanse of time involved.

A. Adobe Acres had no standing to sue as a party plaintiff.

Defend…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Julius Nagler v. Admiral CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
  4. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. NisleyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1961
  5. Gold Strike Stamp Company, a Utah Corporation v. A. Sherman Christensen, District Judge, B. Delos Gardner, Real Parties in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970

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

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

Powered by the Exa API