11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pendleygreen1 sentence2011State v. Pendley, 92 N.M. 9 658, 662-63, 593 P.2d 755, 759-60 (Ct. App. 1979), superceded in statute/rule on 10 other grounds as stated in State v. Gonzales, 95 N.M. 636 , 624 P.2d 1033 (Ct. App. 11 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Vidimos, Inc. v. Laser Lab Ltd., and Wysong Laser Co., Inc., and Wysong & Miles Co.green1 sentence1999See Vidimos, Inc., v. Laser Lab Ltd., 99 F.3d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir.1996) (stating that if the parties to a contract make clear their intention to confer the power of enforcement on a third party, “the concept of freedom of contract becomes a compelling ground for allowing the third party to enforce the contract”). | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Employment Security Administrationgreen2 sentences1996Admin., 266 Md. 223 , 292 A.2d 653, 655 (1972) (excessive absenteeism is a willful disregard of appropriate behavior); Shepherd v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 514 A.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.1986) (stating that “[attendance at work is an obligation which every employee owes to his or her employer”). [48] In Chavez v. Employment Security Commission we set forth a rule, borrowed from an A.L.R. annotation, for determining whether employee absenteeism amounted to misconduct: “[P]ersistent or chronic absenteeism, at least where the absences are without notice or excuse, and are contin 1996Admin., 266 Md. 223 , 292 A.2d 653, 655 (1972) (excessive absenteeism is a willful disregard of appropriate behavior); Shepherd v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 514 A.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.1986) (stating that “[attendance at work is an obligation which every employee owes to his or her employer”). [48] In Chavez v. Employment Security Commission we set forth a rule, borrowed from an A.L.R. annotation, for determining whether employee absenteeism amounted to misconduct: “[P]ersistent or chronic absenteeism, at least where the absences are without notice or excuse, and are contin | 1 | 1 |
Shepherd v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence1996Admin., 266 Md. 223 , 292 A.2d 653, 655 (1972) (excessive absenteeism is a willful disregard of appropriate behavior); Shepherd v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 514 A.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.1986) (stating that “[attendance at work is an obligation which every employee owes to his or her employer”). [48] In Chavez v. Employment Security Commission we set forth a rule, borrowed from an A.L.R. annotation, for determining whether employee absenteeism amounted to misconduct: “[P]ersistent or chronic absenteeism, at least where the absences are without notice or excuse, and are contin | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Armstronggreen2 sentences1990See Baker, 106 N.M. at 397-98, 744 P.2d at 170-73 (quoting Northwestern Nat'l Casualty Co. v. McNulty, 307 F.2d *669 432, 440 (5th Cir.1962): "[T]here is no point in punishing the insurance company; it has done no wrong."). 1990See Baker, 106 N.M. at 397-98, 744 P.2d at 170-73 (quoting Northwestern Nat’l Casualty Co. v. McNulty, 307 F.2d 432, 440 (5th Cir.1962): “[T]here is no point in punishing the insurance company; it has done no wrong.”). | 1 | 1 |
Northwestern National Casualty Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin v. Edward A. McNulty and Walter Scott Smithgreen1 sentence1990See Baker, 106 N.M. at 397-98, 744 P.2d at 170-73 (quoting Northwestern Nat’l Casualty Co. v. McNulty, 307 F.2d 432, 440 (5th Cir.1962): “[T]here is no point in punishing the insurance company; it has done no wrong.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buchanangreen2 sentences1968Compare State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588 , 435 P.2d 207 (1967) ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962) ; Perry v. United States, 332 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1964); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1964). 1968Compare State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588 , 435 P.2d 207 (1967) ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962) ; Perry v. United States, 332 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1964); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1964). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Lammongreen2 sentences1965Compare Bell v. Lammon, 51 N.M. 113 , 179 P.2d 757 ; Berrendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. .Jacobs, 23 N.M. 290 , 168 P. 483 ; Morris v. Miller & Smith Mfg. 1965Compare Bell v. Lammon, 51 N.M. 113 , 179 P.2d 757 ; Berrendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. .Jacobs, 23 N.M. 290 , 168 P. 483 ; Morris v. Miller & Smith Mfg. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atencio v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF PENASCO, ETC.
green
2 sentences1989Id. 1989Id. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences2011State v. Pendley, 92 N.M. 9 658, 662-63, 593 P.2d 755, 759-60 (Ct. App. 1979), superceded in statute/rule on 10 other grounds as stated in State v. Gonzales, 95 N.M. 636 , 624 P.2d 1033 (Ct. App. 11 1981). 2011State v. Pendley, 92 N.M. 9 658, 662-63, 593 P.2d 755, 759-60 (Ct. App. 1979), superceded in statute/rule on 10 other grounds as stated in State v. Gonzales, 95 N.M. 636 , 624 P.2d 1033 (Ct. App. 11 1981). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Though her absences may have “continued in the face of warnings by the employer,” we cannot say that Fitzhugh demonstrated the kind of bad faith implicated by the rule propounded in Chavez, 98 N.M. at 463 , 649 P.2d at 1376 . [55] Before we reexamined the legal standard applicable to this misconduct issue, we concluded that the violation of Prudential’s daily call-in policy is an example of “disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee.” Mitchell, 89 N.M. at 577 , 555 P.2d at 698 . 1996Though her absences may have “continued in the face of warnings by the employer,” we cannot say that Fitzhugh demonstrated the kind of bad faith implicated by the rule propounded in Chavez, 98 N.M. at 463 , 649 P.2d at 1376 . [55] Before we reexamined the legal standard applicable to this misconduct issue, we concluded that the violation of Prudential’s daily call-in policy is an example of “disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee.” Mitchell, 89 N.M. at 577 , 555 P.2d at 698 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Chavez v. Employment Security Commission
green
2 sentences1996Admin., 266 Md. 223 , 292 A.2d 653, 655 (1972) (excessive absenteeism is a willful disregard of appropriate behavior); Shepherd v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 514 A.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.1986) (stating that “[attendance at work is an obligation which every employee owes to his or her employer”). [48] In Chavez v. Employment Security Commission we set forth a rule, borrowed from an A.L.R. annotation, for determining whether employee absenteeism amounted to misconduct: “[P]ersistent or chronic absenteeism, at least where the absences are without notice or excuse, and are contin 1996Admin., 266 Md. 223 , 292 A.2d 653, 655 (1972) (excessive absenteeism is a willful disregard of appropriate behavior); Shepherd v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 514 A.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.1986) (stating that “[attendance at work is an obligation which every employee owes to his or her employer”). [48] In Chavez v. Employment Security Commission we set forth a rule, borrowed from an A.L.R. annotation, for determining whether employee absenteeism amounted to misconduct: “[P]ersistent or chronic absenteeism, at least where the absences are without notice or excuse, and are contin | 1 | 1996–1996 |
National Old Line Insurance v. Brown
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1 Therefore, in the face of a presumption that the parties intended a complete settlement of their respective claims, Bennett had the burden of proving the offer that was accepted encompassed only Kisluk’s claim. 1991Id. [1] Therefore, in the face of a presumption that the parties intended a complete settlement of their respective claims, Bennett had the burden of proving the offer that was accepted encompassed only Kisluk's claim. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
O'Neil v. Vermont
green
2 sentences1977“It is true that the presumption of law is that the majority of the court are right and that I am wrong; yet, in the face of this presumption, and the positiveness with which the views of the majority are asserted, I cannot yield my convictions the other way [convictions which I submitted to my brethren], [convictions] which were never clearer or stronger in any case.” O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 353 , 12 S.Ct. 693, 704 , 36 L.Ed. 450 (1892) (Justice Field, dissenting). 1977“It is true that the presumption of law is that the majority of the court are right and that I am wrong; yet, in the face of this presumption, and the positiveness with which the views of the majority are asserted, I cannot yield my convictions the other way [convictions which I submitted to my brethren], [convictions] which were never clearer or stronger in any case.” O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 353 , 12 S.Ct. 693, 704 , 36 L.Ed. 450 (1892) (Justice Field, dissenting). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Reece
green
2 sentences1969State v. Byrd, supra. Until inquiry has been made into these claims (which are claims outside of the record, State v. Reece, 79 N.M. 142 , 441 P.2d 40 (1968)) by the trial court, the merits of the claims cannot be determined. 1969State v. Byrd, supra. Until inquiry has been made into these claims (which are claims outside of the record, State v. Reece, 79 N.M. 142 , 441 P.2d 40 (1968)) by the trial court, the merits of the claims cannot be determined. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
MacHibroda v. United States
green
2 sentences1968Compare State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588 , 435 P.2d 207 (1967) ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962) ; Perry v. United States, 332 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1964); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1964). 1968Compare State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588 , 435 P.2d 207 (1967) ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962) ; Perry v. United States, 332 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1964); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1964). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Richard Albert Romero and Earl Roy Wallace v. United States
green
1 sentence1968Compare State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588 , 435 P.2d 207 (1967) ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962) ; Perry v. United States, 332 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1964); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1964). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Julius Dwaine Perry, Sr. v. United States
green
1 sentence1968Compare State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588 , 435 P.2d 207 (1967) ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962) ; Perry v. United States, 332 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1964); Romero v. United States, 327 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1964). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Berrendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences1965Compare Bell v. Lammon, 51 N.M. 113 , 179 P.2d 757 ; Berrendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. .Jacobs, 23 N.M. 290 , 168 P. 483 ; Morris v. Miller & Smith Mfg. 1965Compare Bell v. Lammon, 51 N.M. 113 , 179 P.2d 757 ; Berrendo Irrigated Farms Co. v. .Jacobs, 23 N.M. 290 , 168 P. 483 ; Morris v. Miller & Smith Mfg. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.