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.
12 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co.green2 sentences2001Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 426-27 , 773 P.2d 1231, 1233-34 (1989); Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co., 108 N.M. 20, 24-26 , 766 P.2d 280, 284-86 (1988). 2001Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 426-27 , 773 P.2d 1231, 1233-34 (1989); Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co., 108 N.M. 20, 24-26 , 766 P.2d 280, 284-86 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2001Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 426-27 , 773 P.2d 1231, 1233-34 (1989); Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co., 108 N.M. 20, 24-26 , 766 P.2d 280, 284-86 (1988). 2001Hartbarger, 115 N.M. at 669 , 857 P.2d at 780 ; Newberry, 108 N.M. at 426-27 , 773 P.2d at 1233-34. | 2 | 2 |
Vigil v. Arzolagreen2 sentences2001See id. at 687-88 , 699 P.2d at 618-19 ; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 329 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 209 , 506 N.E.2d 919, 921 (1987) (citing implied-in-fact agreements as recognition of the court’s willingness to offset the harsh effect of the at-will doctrine and to afford workers a measure of job security). 2001See id. at 687-88 , 699 P.2d at 618-19 ; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 329 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 209 , 506 N.E.2d 919, 921 (1987) (citing implied-in-fact agreements as recognition of the court’s willingness to offset the harsh effect of the at-will doctrine and to afford workers a measure of job security). | 1 | 2 |
Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc.green2 sentences2001See id. at 687-88 , 699 P.2d at 618-19 ; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 329 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 209 , 506 N.E.2d 919, 921 (1987) (citing implied-in-fact agreements as recognition of the court’s willingness to offset the harsh effect of the at-will doctrine and to afford workers a measure of job security). 2001See id. at 687-88 , 699 P.2d at 618-19 ; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 329 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 209 , 506 N.E.2d 919, 921 (1987) (citing implied-in-fact agreements as recognition of the court’s willingness to offset the harsh effect of the at-will doctrine and to afford workers a measure of job security). | 1 | 1 |
Sheets v. Knightgreen2 sentences1993See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 , 779 P.2d 1000 , 1008 n. 13 (1989) (at-will employee is one who has no reasonable expectation of continued employment); Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 (discussing exception to at-will presumption as “implied-in-fact contract term” (emphasis added)). 1993See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 , 779 P.2d 1000 , 1008 n. 13 (1989) (at-will employee is one who has no reasonable expectation of continued employment); Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 (discussing exception to at-will presumption as “implied-in-fact contract term” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1993See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 , 779 P.2d 1000 , 1008 n. 13 (1989) (at-will employee is one who has no reasonable expectation of continued employment); Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 (discussing exception to at-will presumption as “implied-in-fact contract term” (emphasis added)). 1993See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 , 779 P.2d 1000 , 1008 n. 13 (1989) (at-will employee is one who has no reasonable expectation of continued employment); Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 (discussing exception to at-will presumption as “implied-in-fact contract term” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.green2 sentences1988See, e.g., Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 466 , 443 N.E.2d 441, 446 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 198 (1982) (at-will rule affords no greater status than that of a rebuttable presumption and trier of fact should consider course of conduct of the parties, including the writings and antecedent negotiations); Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544 , 688 P.2d 170 (1984) (en banc). 1988See, e.g., Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 466 , 443 N.E.2d 441, 446 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 198 (1982) (at-will rule affords no greater status than that of a rebuttable presumption and trier of fact should consider course of conduct of the parties, including the writings and antecedent negotiations); Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544 , 688 P.2d 170 (1984) (en banc). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co.
green
2 sentences2001We should restate New Mexico adherence to the at-will rule and at the same time reiterate the Hartbarger admonition: "An employer does not have to issue a policy statement limiting its power to discharge, but if the employer chooses to do so and creates a reasonable expectation on the part of the employee, it is bound to fulfill that expectation." Hartbarger, 115 N.M. at 672 , 857 P.2d at 783 . 2001We should restate New Mexico adherence to the at-will rule and at the same time reiterate the Hartbarger admonition: "An employer does not have to issue a policy statement limiting its power to discharge, but if the employer chooses to do so and creates a reasonable expectation on the part of the employee, it is bound to fulfill that expectation." Hartbarger, 115 N.M. at 672 , 857 P.2d at 783 . | 3 | 2001–2001 |
Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 426-27 , 773 P.2d 1231, 1233-34 (1989); Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co., 108 N.M. 20, 24-26 , 766 P.2d 280, 284-86 (1988). 2001Hartbarger, 115 N.M. at 669 , 857 P.2d at 780 ; Newberry, 108 N.M. at 426-27 , 773 P.2d at 1233-34. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
United Properties Ltd. v. Walgreen Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Ltd. v. Walgreen Props., Inc., 2003-NMCA-140, ¶ 19 , 134 N.M. 725 , 82 P.3d 535 (discussing limitations on the authority of a district court exercising equity jurisdiction to relieve a party from the consequences of its failure to exercise an option in accordance with the terms of a lease). 2005Ltd. v. Walgreen Props., Inc., 2003-NMCA-140, ¶ 19 , 134 N.M. 725 , 82 P.3d 535 (discussing limitations on the authority of a district court exercising equity jurisdiction to relieve a party from the consequences of its failure to exercise an option in accordance with the terms of a lease). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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 |
Gandy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Gandy, 117 N.M. at 444 , 872 P.2d at 862 . 2001Gandy, 117 N.M. at 444 , 872 P.2d at 862 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Silva v. Albuquerque Assembly & Distribution Freeport Warehouse Corp.
green
1 sentence2001Because “its genesis and sole application has been in regard to employment at-will,” it is “unnecessary and inapplicable” when the employee is protected from wrongful discharge by an employment contract. 106 N.M. at 21, 738 P.2d at 515 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Shovelin v. CENTRAL NM ELEC. CO-OP.
green
2 sentences1996As we explained in Shovelin, “the courts interpreting New Mexico law have adhered to the rule that retaliatory discharge is a narrow exception to the rule of employment at will and have refused to expand its application.” Shovelin, 115 N.M. at 304 , 850 P.2d at 1007 . 22. 1996As we explained in Shovelin, “the courts interpreting New Mexico law have adhered to the rule that retaliatory discharge is a narrow exception to the rule of employment at will and have refused to expand its application.” Shovelin, 115 N.M. at 304 , 850 P.2d at 1007 . 22. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital
green
2 sentences1988See, e.g., Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 466 , 443 N.E.2d 441, 446 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 198 (1982) (at-will rule affords no greater status than that of a rebuttable presumption and trier of fact should consider course of conduct of the parties, including the writings and antecedent negotiations); Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544 , 688 P.2d 170 (1984) (en banc). 1988See, e.g., Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 466 , 443 N.E.2d 441, 446 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 198 (1982) (at-will rule affords no greater status than that of a rebuttable presumption and trier of fact should consider course of conduct of the parties, including the writings and antecedent negotiations); Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hosp., 141 Ariz. 544 , 688 P.2d 170 (1984) (en banc). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Maxwell v. Ross Hyden Motors, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987In Maxwell v. Ross Hyden Motors, Inc., 104 N.M. 470 , 722 P.2d 1192 (Ct.App.1986), the court of appeals clarified its holding in Vigil by stating, “Vigil did not sound the death knell of the at-will rule. 1987In Maxwell v. Ross Hyden Motors, Inc., 104 N.M. 470 , 722 P.2d 1192 (Ct.App.1986), the court of appeals clarified its holding in Vigil by stating, “Vigil did not sound the death knell of the at-will rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.
green
2 sentences1986In 1981, when two additional jurisdictions limited the application of the at-will rule, Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981), and Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 , 432 A.2d 464 (1981), New Mexico rejected the trend. 1986In 1981, when two additional jurisdictions limited the application of the at-will rule, Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981), and Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 , 432 A.2d 464 (1981), New Mexico rejected the trend. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bottijliso v. Hutchison Fruit Co.
green
2 sentences1986In Bottijliso v. Hutchison Fruit Co., 96 N.M. 789 , 635 P.2d 992 (Ct.App.1981), this court upheld the applicability of the at-will rule in the worker’s compensation setting. 1986In Bottijliso v. Hutchison Fruit Co., 96 N.M. 789 , 635 P.2d 992 (Ct.App.1981), this court upheld the applicability of the at-will rule in the worker’s compensation setting. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Adler v. American Standard Corp.
green
2 sentences1986In 1981, when two additional jurisdictions limited the application of the at-will rule, Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981), and Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 , 432 A.2d 464 (1981), New Mexico rejected the trend. 1986In 1981, when two additional jurisdictions limited the application of the at-will rule, Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124 , 52 Ill.Dec. 13 , 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981), and Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 , 432 A.2d 464 (1981), New Mexico rejected the trend. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.