{
  "id": 1552951,
  "name": "CONNER v. FLASKA et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Conner v. Flaska",
  "decision_date": "1927-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 3026",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "163",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 N.M. 162"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "252 P. 1001"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "70 P. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N. M. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/11/0515-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1117,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2994991213773467
    },
    "sha256": "fb0c5c35f9c515a9743154456844c612fae01d5fa42a8a6aefb624b8d7e27952",
    "simhash": "1:7d6fb7e1209fc57a",
    "word_count": 193
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:14:07.141384+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PARKER, C. J., and B10KLET and WATSON, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CONNER v. FLASKA et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINON OP THE COURT\nPER CURIAM.\nAppellant, plaintiff below, sued to recover $75, a balance for professional services rendered. The jury found against him, and judgment followed. He complains here that, over his objection and exception, the court refused to allow his counsel to address the jury. This seems to ha.ve been the denial of a right which a party litigant enjoys under Gode 1915, \u00a74467, which reads:\n\u201cEvery plaintiff or defendant shall be entitled to be heard before the jury by an attorney, and if there be but one plaintiff or defendant, by two, and when there are several defendants having- the same or separate defenses and appearing- by the same or different attorneys, the court\u00bb shall, before argument, arrange their order.\u201d\nSee Territory v. Sherron, 11 N. M. 515, 70 P. 562.\nBecause of this error, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial; and it is so ordered.\nPARKER, C. J., and B10KLET and WATSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. J. Mabry, of Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "George C. Taylor, of Albuquerque, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3026,\nJan. 7, 1927]\nCONNER v. FLASKA et ux\n[252 Pac. 1001]\nT. J. Mabry, of Albuquerque, for appellant.\nGeorge C. Taylor, of Albuquerque, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 219
}