Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez v. the New Mexicangreen2 sentences2006See Sanchez v. The New Mexican, 106 N.M. 76, 79 , 738 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1987) (affirming the dismissal of an implied contract claim on grounds that “the handbook lacked specific contractual terms which might evidence the intent to form a contract ... [insofar as the] language is of a non-promissory nature and merely a declaration of defendant’s general approach”); Stieber v. Journal Publ’g Co., 120 N.M. 270, 274 , 901 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct.App.1995) (holding that general policy statements in a handbook are “insufficient to create an implied contract” because they are merely declarations of a genera 2006See Sanchez v. The New Mexican, 106 N.M. 76, 79 , 738 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1987) (affirming the dismissal of an implied contract claim on grounds that “the handbook lacked specific contractual terms which might evidence the intent to form a contract ... [insofar as the] language is of a non-promissory nature and merely a declaration of defendant’s general approach”); Stieber v. Journal Publ’g Co., 120 N.M. 270, 274 , 901 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct.App.1995) (holding that general policy statements in a handbook are “insufficient to create an implied contract” because they are merely declarations of a genera | 2 | 2 |
Stieber v. Journal Publishing Co.green2 sentences2006See Sanchez v. The New Mexican, 106 N.M. 76, 79 , 738 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1987) (affirming the dismissal of an implied contract claim on grounds that “the handbook lacked specific contractual terms which might evidence the intent to form a contract ... [insofar as the] language is of a non-promissory nature and merely a declaration of defendant’s general approach”); Stieber v. Journal Publ’g Co., 120 N.M. 270, 274 , 901 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct.App.1995) (holding that general policy statements in a handbook are “insufficient to create an implied contract” because they are merely declarations of a genera 2006See Sanchez v. The New Mexican, 106 N.M. 76, 79 , 738 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1987) (affirming the dismissal of an implied contract claim on grounds that “the handbook lacked specific contractual terms which might evidence the intent to form a contract ... [insofar as the] language is of a non-promissory nature and merely a declaration of defendant’s general approach”); Stieber v. Journal Publ’g Co., 120 N.M. 270, 274 , 901 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct.App.1995) (holding that general policy statements in a handbook are “insufficient to create an implied contract” because they are merely declarations of a genera | 2 | 2 |
Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin Coll.green2 sentences2006See Sanchez v. The New Mexican, 106 N.M. 76, 79 , 738 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1987) (affirming the dismissal of an implied contract claim on grounds that "the handbook lacked specific contractual terms which might evidence the intent to form a contract . . . [insofar as the] language is of a non-promissory nature and merely a declaration of defendant's general approach"); Stieber v. Journal Publ'g Co., 120 N.M. 270, 274 , 901 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct. App.1995) (holding that general policy statements in a handbook are "insufficient to create an implied contract" because they are merely declarations of a gen 2006See Sanchez v. The New Mexican, 106 N.M. 76, 79 , 738 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1987) (affirming the dismissal of an implied contract claim on grounds that “the handbook lacked specific contractual terms which might evidence the intent to form a contract ... [insofar as the] language is of a non-promissory nature and merely a declaration of defendant’s general approach”); Stieber v. Journal Publ’g Co., 120 N.M. 270, 274 , 901 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct.App.1995) (holding that general policy statements in a handbook are “insufficient to create an implied contract” because they are merely declarations of a genera | 2 | 2 |
Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospitalred2 sentences1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog 1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog | 1 | 1 |
Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shieldgreen2 sentences1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog 1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog | 1 | 1 |
Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.green2 sentences1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog 1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog | 1 | 1 |
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospitalred2 sentences1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog 1990See Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381-83 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1037-38 (1985) (en banc) (specific promissory language not essential; parties’ intent to be discerned from totality of statements and actions; contractual provision may be enforced without showing reliance) (citing Leikvold v. Valley View Comm. Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544, 548 , 688 P.2d 170, 174 (1984)); Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-29 , 171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-927 (1981) (“independent consideration” not necessary to support promise of continued employment; rendition of services over time, tog | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Campos De Suenos, Ltd. v. County of Bernalillo
green
2 sentences2004Id. ¶¶ 3,12. {16} Defendants argue that in Campos de Suenos, Ltd. v. County of Bernalillo, 2001-NMCA-043 , 130 N.M. 563 , 28 P.3d 1104 , this Court “expressly refused to extend the implied contract doctrine outside the scope of the narrow exception to the at-will doctrine recognized in Garcia.” Defendants misread our holding. 2004Id. ¶¶ 3,12. {16} Defendants argue that in Campos de Suenos, Ltd. v. County of Bernalillo, 2001-NMCA-043 , 130 N.M. 563 , 28 P.3d 1104 , this Court “expressly refused to extend the implied contract doctrine outside the scope of the narrow exception to the at-will doctrine recognized in Garcia.” Defendants misread our holding. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Trujillo v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences1992Defendants argue that no reported decision has dealt with the “collision” between the implied contract doctrine in private employment and Section 37-l-23(A), though Trujillo v. Gonzales, 106 N.M. 620 , 747 P.2d 915 (1987), certainly comes close. 1992Defendants argue that no reported decision has dealt with the “collision” between the implied contract doctrine in private employment and Section 37-l-23(A), though Trujillo v. Gonzales, 106 N.M. 620 , 747 P.2d 915 (1987), certainly comes close. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.