Dougherty v. Davis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 CHARLES and JOANN DOUGHERTY, 3 husband and wife, 4 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 5 v. NO. 32,687 6 MARK AND JACKIE DAVIS, 7 Defendants-Appellants. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CIBOLA COUNTY 9 Camille M. Olguin, District Judge 10 Rosebrough Law Firm, P.C. 11 Robert F. Rosebrough, Esq. 12 Gallup, NM 13 for Appellees 14 Lakins Law Firm, P.C. 15 Charles N. Lakins, Esq. 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellants 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 WECHSLER, Judge. 3 {1} Defendants appeal the district court s judgment awarding damages to Plaintiffs. 4 We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm the judgment. Defendants attorney 5 has not filed a response to that calendar notice. However, Defendant Mark Davis did 6 e-mail a document entitled Comments: TO JAMES J WECHSLER to the court 7 system s help desk. The e-mail was then forwarded to the Court of Appeals clerk s 8 office, and a paper copy of the e-mail has been placed in this Court s file. Despite the 9 unusual route this document has taken to come before the Court, we will consider its 10 contents. 11 {2} The document e-mailed by Defendant Mark Davis attacks the district court s 12 judgment mainly by asserting that the Special Master s decision was contrary to the 13 evidence. According to the document, Plaintiffs witnesses lied to the Special Master, 14 and the Special Master was unable to read a topo map. In other words, the 15 document essentially asks this Court to overturn the Special Master s credibility 16 determinations and re-weigh the evidence in favor of Defendants rather than Plaintiffs. 17 However, as we explained in the calendar notice, this Court is required to view the 1 evidence in the light most favorable to the decision below. See Robertson v. Carmel 2 Builders Real Estate, 2004-NMCA-056, ¶ 28, 135 N.M. 641, 92 P.3d 653. We may 3 not overturn credibility determinations made by the district court, since we were not 4 present to see the witnesses testify or, as in this case, to personally view the physical 5 location of the dispute. See New Mexicans for Free Enter. v. City of Santa Fe, 6 2006-NMCA-007, ¶ 71, 138 N.M. 785, 126 P.3d 1149; Evans v. Taxation & Revenue 7 Dep't, 1996-NMCA-080, ¶¶ 9, 10, 122 N.M. 216, 922 P.2d 1212. Therefore, the 8 arguments raised in the e-mailed document are not a sufficient basis for reversal of the 9 district court s judgment. 10 {3} For the reasons discussed in this opinion and in our calendar notice, we affirm 11 the judgment entered below. 12 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 ________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16 ________________________________ 17 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 18 ________________________________ 19 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
