Today the Democratic Party’s Central Committee met in Albuquerque to choose the party’s nominee for the New Mexico Supreme Court seat that was vacated yesterday by Justice Serna.
The Committee eventually selected Chief Judge Barbara Vigil of the First Judicial District Court (which encompasses Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Rio Arriba counties). Congratulations to her!
Judge Vigil will face off against the Republican nominee, if any, in this November’s general election. I have heard that the Republicans will be meeting on September 8 to consider a possible nominee.
Supreme Court Building, Santa Fe. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons, public domain photo
Today marks the retirement of Justice Patricio M. Serna from the New Mexico Supreme Court. He has served on the Court for nearly sixteen years, including some time as Chief Justice. Previously he served as a district court judge in Santa Fe for eleven years.
Coming from a humble background in his beloved Catron County, Justice Serna was the first member of his family to go to college (the College of St. Joseph on the Rio Grande). He want to law school at the University of Denver, and was awarded a Master of Laws degree by Harvard Law School.
Justice Serna’s term on the Supreme Court has been characterized by unfailing dedication to public service, personal integrity, and numerous acts of kindness and generosity to those around him (including the author of this blog). He has done the citizens of Catron County and all of New Mexico proud, and will be missed.
A ceremony in his honor will be held at 3:00 p.m. today at the Supreme Court building in Santa Fe, to be followed by a reception in the Supreme Court Library. If you are in the area, stop by and wish Justice Serna the best in his well-deserved retirement.
Democracy for New Mexico’s YouTube Channel has now posted individual interviews with four of the five Democratic candidates for the New Mexico Supreme Court seat being vacated today by Justice Serna, as well as a talk by the fifth candidate, Chief Judge Barbara Vigil:
The Democratic Party’s Central Committee is scheduled to decide who its nominee will be tomorrow. I have heard that the Republican Party will make its decision on September 8.
Minimum contacts. Purposeful availment. Haled into court. Stream of commerce.
You may not have heard those phrases since your first year of law school, but last week the Court of Appeals, in Sproul v. Rob & Charlie’s, Inc., took up the difficult task of deciding whether New Mexico can constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer of an allegedly defective bicycle part.
The defendant manufactured the parts in Taiwan, and brought them to market in the United States through a distributor in Florida. The defendant also had an employee in California who provides customer service and support to bicycle manufacturers and other customers in the country, apparently including some in New Mexico.
Judge Vanzi, writing for the majority, had the unenviable task of wading through the U.S. Supreme Court’s murky pronouncements in this area. Perhaps the major unresolved issue involving foreign defendants is (1) whether an individual State may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant who sells its products to the United States market in general but has not specifically targeted that State in particular; or (2) whether the State may only exercise specific jurisdiction if it is shown that the defendant directed its business activities toward that State in particular. Continue reading →
In response to a wrongful death lawsuit arising from the death of a resident, a Belen nursing home sought to enforce an arbitration agreement, which required that all disputes between the resident (or his family) and the nursing home be resolved in arbitration, except for “disputes pertaining to collections or discharge of residents.” The district court refused to enforce the agreement on unconscionability grounds.
Last week the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Ruppelt v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC, affirming the district court. Writing for the Court, Judge Timothy Garcia said that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was unfairly one-sided, in that it preserved the nursing home’s right to bring to court its most likely claims (i.e. collection and discharge lawsuits), but forced the resident to arbitrate his most likely claims. Continue reading →
The State Bar of New Mexico will be holding its 23rd Annual Appellate Practice Institute on Friday, September 14 at the State Bar Center in Albuquerque.
The Democracy for New Mexico website has this post about a forum that the Bernalillo County Democratic Party held on August 16, which includes videos of each of the five Democratic candidates’ opening statements, as well as answers to questions.
You can find even more videos from the forum here, on Democracy for New Mexico’s YouTube channel.
The New Mexico Democratic Party’s central committee will meet on Saturday, August 25 to select the party’s nominee.
The website ProgressNow New Mexico has this interesting set of interviews with each of the five Democratic Candates for the New Mexico Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Patricio Serna. The interviews are well worth reading. The Democratic Party’s Central Committee will meet on August 25 to determine which of the candidates will be the party’s nominee in the November election.
KOB-TV has this report indicating that New Mexico has joined 13 other states in an amicus curiae brief filed before the Supreme Court of the United States, supporting the University of Texas’ use of race in admissions. By “New Mexico,” the report means Attorney General Gary King, who signed off on the amicus brief, which the always-informative SCOTUS Blog has posted here.
The case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, is likely to be one of the most controversial of the upcoming term, and the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on October 10.
If you want to know more about the case, take a look at the page that SCOTUS Blog has dedicated to it, which includes links to the parties’ merits briefs, as well as the dozens of other amicus briefs that have already been filed. I highly doubt that the justices will actually read all of the amicus briefs.
