{
  "id": 1557911,
  "name": "RICHARDS v. LUCERO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Richards v. Lucero",
  "decision_date": "1931-03-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 3520",
  "first_page": "356",
  "last_page": "357",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 N.M. 356"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "298 P. 662"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1298,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4141583157937007
    },
    "sha256": "1274692611ec2c1024e5659557ee2a2e015afad4ebb22d5abef0babf224910bf",
    "simhash": "1:ecea7ea7a8f48b14",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:25.112313+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PARKER and SADLER, JJ., concur.",
      "BICKLEY, C. J., and HUDSPETH, J., did not participate."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARDS v. LUCERO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT\nWATSON, J.\nAppellant, as assignee of a judgment rendered against appellee March 8, 1923, sued to revive it. By cross-complaint appellee sued appellant for abuse of process, alleging that, after the judgment in question had become dormant, appellant had sued out execution thereon, and, by levying the same upon appellee\u2019s stock of merchandise, had occasioned the latter damage.\nThe trial court, upon findings, concluded that appellant was entitled to a renewal of his judgment in the sum of $552.98, and that appellee was entitled to $750 damages on his cross-complaint. Judgment was rendered on the cross-complaint for the excess.\nAppellant\u2019s only contention here is that the damages awarded for abuse of process are excessive. He admits that, if appellee\u2019s story be taken at face value, he cannot escape the substantial evidence rule. Whether this witness told the truth was a question for the trial court.\nThe judgment must be affirmed. The cause will be remanded.\nIt is so ordered.\nPARKER and SADLER, JJ., concur.\nBICKLEY, C. J., and HUDSPETH, J., did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. P. Fullerton and Willis N. Birdsall, both of Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "McIntosh & Chavez and E. P. Davies, all of Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3520.\nMarch 28, 1931.]\nRICHARDS v. LUCERO.\n[298 Pac. 662.]\nR. P. Fullerton and Willis N. Birdsall, both of Santa Fe, for appellant.\nMcIntosh & Chavez and E. P. Davies, all of Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0356-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}