Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Muniz v. Hallmark

Collection Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Date 12/16/2013
Docket Numbers 32,848
Decision-maker(s) TIMOTHY L. GARCIA; RODERICK T. KENNEDY; MICHAEL E. VIGIL
Opinion Type Unreported Opinions
Relations See AI generated summary - Muniz v. Hallmark (AI Generated Opinion Summaries) - 12/16/2013
Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,882 documents

Decision Content

MUNIZ V. HALLMARK

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

NAPOLEON MUNIZ, JUDY MUNIZ
and CANDACE ARCHIBEQUE,
Individually and as Parent and Next
Friend of ELIJAH MUNIZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMBER HALLMARK,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 32,848

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

December 16, 2013


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY, Violet C. Otero, District Judge

COUNSEL

Michael J. Doyle, Los Lunas, NM, for Appellants

Orraj, Anderson & Obrey-Espinoza, Mark D. Trujillo, Carlos Espinoza, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

JUDGES

TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

AUTHOR: TIMOTHY L. GARCIA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GARCIA, Judge.

Summary dismissal was proposed for the reason stated in the notice of proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

WE CONCUR:

RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.