{
  "id": 5339454,
  "name": "Em'ly ATTAWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIM MILLER, INC., d/b/a Paul Thorp Health Spas and Nadine Lovelady, d/b/a Lovelady Realty and Construction Company, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Attaway v. Jim Miller, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 750",
  "first_page": "686",
  "last_page": "687",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 686"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "496 P.2d 746"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5339252
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5333976
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 P. 1042",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1918,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.M. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8512627
      ],
      "year": 1918,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/24/0084-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2518,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.672,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.232378735636767e-08,
      "percentile": 0.51068286220548
    },
    "sha256": "cd21ba78c9b80eadfd3e5703150b3c0a62983d868e0ab7f24f82ec4b707cece7",
    "simhash": "1:9f8e87a9b5445373",
    "word_count": 403
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Em\u2019ly ATTAWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIM MILLER, INC., d/b/a Paul Thorp Health Spas and Nadine Lovelady, d/b/a Lovelady Realty and Construction Company, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendants appeal from judgment entered on a jury verdict against them for personal injuries awarded Attaway.\nWe affirm.\nEach defendant raises separate grounds for reversal.\nA. LOVELADY\nLovelady contends, (1) the trial court erred in requiring her counsel to make peremptory challenges and challenges for good cause which were made in the hearing of the jury; (2) the trial court erred in requiring her counsel to make his motion to dismiss in the hearing of the jury.\nThe record does not support Lovelady\u2019s contentions. It is void of any proceedings for which error is claimed. To obtain a review, the record on appeal must show such portions of the proceedings below necessary to raise claimed error on appeal. Section 21-2-1(17) (1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). Seinsheimer & Co. v. Jacobson, 24 N.M. 84, 172 P. 1042 (1918); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Sherman, 82 N.M. 316, 481 P.2d 104 (1971). Since the record does not show that challenges were exercised, or that they were exercised in the hearing of the jury, or that the motion to dismiss in the hearing of the jury was actually heard by the jury, the judgment is affirmed.\nB. MILLER\nMiller contends \u201call the evidence\u201d shows the relationship between Miller and Attaway to be that of master-servant and the relationship of Lovelady to Miller was that of an independent contractor. Miller claims he is not responsible for Lovelady\u2019s negligence. We do not have to decide this issue. Independent of Lovelady\u2019s negligence, substantial evidence of negligence on the part of Miller supports the determination of Miller\u2019s liability. The judgment against Miller is affirmed.\nAt oral argument, Attaway asked that damages for delay be assessed in her favor under Supreme Court Rule 17(3) [\u00a7 21-2-1(17) (3), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4) ]. However, Attaway did not, thereafter, file a motion with brief in support thereof. Nevertheless, Attaway failed to meet the conditions set forth in Anderson v. Jenkins Construction Company, 83 N.M. 47, 487 P.2d 1352 (Ct.App.1971).\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. E. Richards, Girand & Richards, Hobbs, for appellant Lovelady.",
      "L. George Schubert, Hobbs, for appellant Miller.",
      "William J. Heck, Hobbs, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "496 P.2d 746\nEm\u2019ly ATTAWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIM MILLER, INC., d/b/a Paul Thorp Health Spas and Nadine Lovelady, d/b/a Lovelady Realty and Construction Company, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 750.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 14, 1972.\nR. E. Richards, Girand & Richards, Hobbs, for appellant Lovelady.\nL. George Schubert, Hobbs, for appellant Miller.\nWilliam J. Heck, Hobbs, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0686-01",
  "first_page_order": 812,
  "last_page_order": 813
}