{
  "id": 2776375,
  "name": "Joseph E. LACY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLIDAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lacy v. Holiday Management Co.",
  "decision_date": "1973-07-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 9655",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 N.M. 460"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "513 P.2d 394"
    }
  ],
  "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": 132,
    "char_count": 1296,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.704,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.149909405483824e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44481738213622574
    },
    "sha256": "94dc690a93b0fe4d40f4be361604341d778bfaed9cbf47b366a0960a1bc1d28e",
    "simhash": "1:152405801c850c63",
    "word_count": 198
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "McMANUS, C. J., and MONTOYA, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph E. LACY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLIDAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSTEPHENSON, Justice.\nPlaintiff-Appellant sued, alleging breach of fiducial obligations owed him as a result of a partnership of which he had been a member.\nThe trial court\u2019s decision included findings of fact consistent with honesty and fair dealing on the part of the defendants-appellees and inconsistent with appellant\u2019s factual predicate. It also denied findings of fact requested by appellant which were essential to his case.\nIn attempting to attack these actions of the trial court, appellant\u2019s brief falls far short of compliance with the second paragraph of Supreme Court Rule 15(6) [\u00a7 21-2-1(15) (6), N.M.S.A.1953]. Compliance with portions of Supreme Court Rule 15 (16) (b) and (c) [\u00a7 21-2-1 (15) (16) (b & c), N.M.S.A.1953] ranges from slight to none.\nWe will accordingly consider the matter no further. The judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nMcMANUS, C. J., and MONTOYA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEPHENSON, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James R. Toulouse & Associates, James C. Hall, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Keleher & McLeod, John B. Tittmann, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "513 P.2d 394\nJoseph E. LACY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLIDAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 9655.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 13, 1973.\nRehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1973.\nJames R. Toulouse & Associates, James C. Hall, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nKeleher & McLeod, John B. Tittmann, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 522,
  "last_page_order": 522
}