{ "id": 2802314, "name": "Jesse D. BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHUFFLEBARGER & ASSOCIATES, INC., Employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Shufflebarger & Associates, Inc.", "decision_date": "1966-09-12", "docket_number": "No. 7937", "first_page": "50", "last_page": "52", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 N.M. 50" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "419 P.2d 250" } ], "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": "51 N.M. 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1578356 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/51/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 N.M. 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584694 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/56/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N.M. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2852886 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/72/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 N.M. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8841603 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/57/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.M. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2848670 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/66/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N.M. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5348363 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/71/0305-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 244, "char_count": 2834, "ocr_confidence": 0.631, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3655175034878777e-07, "percentile": 0.6371998908044446 }, "sha256": "30cdfecccd20c90153b9eec9229478812595156202a23cc3b4122c44abca4073", "simhash": "1:579efcecf2080f38", "word_count": 453 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Jesse D. BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHUFFLEBARGER & ASSOCIATES, INC., Employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nE. T. HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.\nThis is an action to recover benefits afforded by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. The claimant was awarded judgment - in ''the \u25a0 trial- court and the defendants have appealed. ' '\nThe defendants\u2019 fifth defense presented in their answer raised the issue of the statute of limitations included in the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act; After trial the defendants requested a conclusion that the action was not timely filed. The decision filed \u2019by the court' contains no finding on the 'issue of the statute of limitations.\nAt the outset, we are confronted with' a series of established rules of law. In Linton v. Mauer-Neuer Meat Packers, 71 N.M. 305, 378 P.2d 126, we concluded:\n\u201cWe recognize that the limitations statute, as to workmen\u2019s compensation, is what has frequently'been termed a jurisdictional' matter * * *, and the burden is on the' claimant to prove ' compliance therewith. '* * * \u201d\nSee also Selgado v. New Mexico State Highway Department, 66 N.M. 369, 348 P.2d 487; Sanchez v. Bernalillo County, 57 N.M. 217, 257 P.2d 909. Next, in Hoskins v. Albuquerque Bus Company, 72 N.M. 217, 382 P.2d 700, we there concluded:\n\u201c * * * Even if omissions were made, it is the rule in this jurisdiction that a failure by the trial court to find a material fact must be regarded as a finding against the party having the burden of establishing such .fact.. * * * \u2019.\u2019 (Emphasis supplied.)\nThe same ruling was announced in Farrar v. Hood, 56 N.M. 724, 249 P.2d 759. In view of the foregoing rules and because of the failure of the trial court to announce a finding on the issue of the statute of limitations, we must assume that the action was not timely filed. This assumption and the judgment in favor of the claimant present a irreconcilable conflict.\nLastly, it should be noted that since we have termed the matter as jurisdictional, Linton v. Mauer-Neuer Meat Packers, supra, we are next concerned with State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 183 P.2d 845, wherein we repeated:\n\u201cLack of jurisdiction at any .stage of a proceeding is a controlling consideration to he resolved before going further.\u201d\nWe must therefore remand this cause for further finding on the issue- of timeliness under \u00a7 59-10-13.6, subd. A, N.M.S.A.1953, and for such subsequent action as will be consistent with the finding to be made.\nIt is so ordered.\nCHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "E. T. HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals." } ], "attorneys": [ "Modrall,' Seyihour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, James A. Parker, Albuquerque, for appellants.", "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, James C. Ritchie, Albuquerque; for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "419 P.2d 250\nJesse D. BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHUFFLEBARGER & ASSOCIATES, INC., Employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 7937.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 12, 1966.\nRehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1966.\nModrall,' Seyihour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, James A. Parker, Albuquerque, for appellants.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, James C. Ritchie, Albuquerque; for appellee." }, "file_name": "0050-01", "first_page_order": 82, "last_page_order": 84 }