Case Citator › Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
564 U.S. 647
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
76 of 76
Citing cases (total)
76
Treatment dates
2012
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Bullcoming v. New Mexico has been limited. All 76 flagged citations have been processed; 2 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

76 later cases cite Bullcoming v. New Mexico; 76 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Bullcoming v. New Mexico?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The New Mexico Court of Appeals declined to extend Bullcoming to an expert's independent opinion about an autopsy when the original report was not admitted and the expert had not performed the autopsy.

    State v. Gonzales · New Mexico Court of Appeals · filed

    In the realm of Confrontation Clause analysis, we, too, refuse to extend the holdings of Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming II and to toss a blanket ban on the testimony of an expert witness about the circumstances of the death of the victim in those instances when the expert did not perform the autopsy and the autopsy report has not been admitted into evidence.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit held that Bullcoming could not supply clearly established federal law for AEDPA review of a state adjudication made before Bullcoming was decided.

    Meras v. Sisto · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Meras relies on three Supreme Court decisions: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011). Of these, only Crawford was decided before the Court of Appeal affirmed Meras’s conviction, so only Crawford constitutes “clearly established Federal law” for purposes of our review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bullcoming v. New Mexico and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace