AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the wrongful death estate of Anita Jean Rudolph, represented by Paul Rudolph, against WW Healthcare, LLC, Horace Winchester, Jerry Williamson, and other defendants. The matter escalated to involve third-party and fourth-party claims against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company and Van Gilder Insurance Corporation, focusing on issues related to insurance and liability in the context of wrongful death.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge, dated August 18, 2014. The lower court's decision is not detailed in the provided text, indicating the procedural stance leading to the appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Paul Rudolph, representing the estate of Anita Jean Rudolph): The specific arguments made by the plaintiff-appellee are not detailed in the provided text. (N/A)
• Defendants-Appellants (WW Healthcare, LLC; Horace Winchester; Jerry Williamson): The specific arguments made by the defendants-appellants are not detailed in the provided text. (N/A)
• Third-Party Defendants (Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Van Gilder Insurance Corporation): The specific arguments made by the third-party defendants are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the District Court of Bernalillo County's decision warrants summary reversal and remand for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's calendar notice. (para 1)

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico proposed summary reversal and remand for the reasons stated in the calendar notice, with no opposition filed against this proposal. Consequently, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's calendar notice. (para 1)

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael D. Bustmante, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The decision to propose summary reversal and remand was based on the reasons stated in the calendar notice. The absence of any memorandum opposing this proposal, coupled with the expiration of the time allowed for filing such opposition, led to the decision to remand the case for further proceedings in line with the appellate court's earlier notice. (paras 1-2)