# Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque

> New Mexico Supreme Court · October 3, 1990 · 110 N.M. 621

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587418

## Case

- **Full name:** Lawrence TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. the CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 3, 1990
- **Citations:** 110 N.M. 621; 798 P.2d 571
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wilson
- **Judges:** Ransom, Sosa, Baca, Wilson, Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 125 N.M. 721 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587418

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that intermediate scrutiny should be applied to an equal protection challenge to a cap on damages recovered from a city because “[a] tort victim’s interest in full recovery of damages calls . . . for a form of scrutiny somewhere between the largely toothless invocation…
- stating that Article II, Section 4 does not afford more protection to victims of governmental torts than do the provisions of Article II, Section 18
- finding that tort damages cap discriminated against only certain victims of a given tortfeasor depending upon the amount of damages suffered
- discussing level of scrutiny required under the New Mexico Constitution article II, section 18 and noting that federal cases do not control

## Opinion text

WILSON, Justice, specially concurring.
I concur that it is appropriate to remand this case to develop additional facts. However, I am not convinced that this is the appropriate time to decide the issue of heightened scrutiny, and like Justice Montgomery, would prefer to leave those doubts for another day.
Further, while I concur that this case involves a single occurrence, in light of my recent dissent in Folz v. State, 110 N.M. 457 , 797 P.2d 246 (1990), I take exception to the analysis used by the majority in reaching that conclusion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587418. Public record. Not legal advice.