Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrowde, Michael B.
dc.date.accessioned2008-11-26T18:07:39Z
dc.date.available2008-11-26T18:07:39Z
dc.date.issued1998
dc.identifier.citation28 N.M. L. Rev. 387 (1998)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1928/7007
dc.description.abstractThis article raises concerns about two aspects of the Gomez analysis, and then suggests that the seeming absolutism of the Gomez approach may not hold for all future cases. First, while the thrust of Gomez is to reinforce New Mexico's commitment to an independent jurisprudence of state constitutional rights, its presumption in favor of the established federal jurisprudence, unless one of three criteria is met, may undermine the very independent jurisprudence which it so firmly endorses. Second, Gomez' suggestion that the value of uniformity may intercede to prevent "deviation" from the federal analysis raises both theoretical and practical concerns. Third, and finally, while an interstitial approach may now be established as the general approach in New Mexico, the precise form of New Mexico interstitialism should not be taken for granted. There may be situations that will call for modifications of the Gomez approach in new and different circumstances.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of New Mexico School of Lawen_US
dc.subjectBrowdeen_US
dc.subjectMichaelen_US
dc.titleState v. Gomez and the Continuing Conversation Over New Mexico's State Constitutional Rights Jurisprudenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record