Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Arco Materials, Inc. v. State Taxation Revenue - cited by 53 documents
Blaze Constr. Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't of New Mexico - cited by 57 documents
Decision Content
LUCERO V. TRUJILLO
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
CONSUELO LUCERO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID TRUJILLO, SAFECO INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, and PROGRESSIVE
HALCYON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
NO. 29,859
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
January 7, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Ted
Baca, District Judge
COUNSEL
Law Office of Geoffrey R. Romero, Geoffrey R. Romero, Albuquerque, NM, Garcia & Vargas, LLC, Ray M. Vargas, II, David P. Garcia, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Douglas G. Schneebeck, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
AUTHOR:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
Insured appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Insurer. We proposed to reverse based on our recent decision in Romero v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., No. 28,720, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2009). In response, Insurer asks that we stay the case until the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Romero is decided by our Supreme Court. We point out, however, that Romero is the latest pronouncement from this Court, and although certiorari has been filed and may be granted, the Supreme Court has not reversed or overruled this Court’s decision in Romero. Until the Supreme Court does so, Romero remains controlling precedent on which our courts are entitled to rely. See Arco Materials, Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 118 N.M. 12, 14, 878 P.2d 330, 332 (Ct. App. 1994), rev’d on other grounds by Blaze Constr. Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 118 N.M. 647, 884 P.2d 803 (Ct. App. 1994).
For the reasons explained in our calendar notice, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer, and remand for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge