10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Diebold, Inc.green2 sentences2013Ctr., 593 F. Supp. 2d 659, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (stating that equitable tolling is inapplicable because “allegations [of trickery by the defendant who offered the plaintiff an interview after her termination] are insufficient to merit the application of the equitable tolling doctrine[,]” and that the plaintiff “has not demonstrated that she exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing her discrimination claim”); see also Allen, 807 F. Supp. at 1317 (concluding that where the plaintiffs offered no facts to show diligence, equitable tolling does not apply even if the plaintiffs were only informed a 2013Ctr., 593 F. Supp. 2d 659, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (stating that equitable tolling is inapplicable because “allegations [of trickery by the defendant who offered the plaintiff an interview after her termination] are insufficient to merit the application of the equitable tolling doctrine[,]” and that the plaintiff “has not demonstrated that she exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing her discrimination claim”); see also Allen, 807 F. Supp. at 1317 (concluding that where the plaintiffs offered no facts to show diligence, equitable tolling does not apply even if the plaintiffs were only informed a | 3 | 3 |
Auguste v. New York Presbyterian Medical Centergreen2 sentences2013Ctr., 593 F. Supp. 2d 659, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (stating that equitable tolling is inapplicable because “allegations [of trickery by the defendant who offered the plaintiff an interview after her termination] are insufficient to merit the application of the equitable tolling doctrine[,]” and that the plaintiff “has not demonstrated that she exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing her discrimination claim”); see also Allen, 807 F. Supp. at 1317 (concluding that where the plaintiffs offered no facts to show diligence, equitable tolling does not apply even if the plaintiffs were only informed a 2013Ctr., 593 F. Supp. 2d 659, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (stating that equitable tolling is inapplicable because “allegations [of trickery by the defendant who offered the plaintiff an interview after her termination] are insufficient to merit the application of the equitable tolling doctrine[,]” and that the plaintiff “has not demonstrated that she exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing her discrimination claim”); see also Allen, 807 F. Supp. at 1317 (concluding that where the plaintiffs offered no facts to show diligence, equitable tolling does not apply even if the plaintiffs were only informed a | 3 | 3 |
Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc.green1 sentence2004See id. | 1 | 1 |
Addison v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences1986On appeal, the Addison court reversed, asserting that while the limitation period for governmental tort claims was “mandatory and must be strictly complied with * * id. 146 Cal.Rptr. at 225 , 578 P.2d at 942 , application of the doctrine of equitable tolling was not precluded when “the harsh impact of technical rules * * * might otherwise prevent a good faith litigant from having a day in court.” Addison, 21 Cal.3d at 316 , 146 Cal.Rptr. at 225 , 578 P.2d at 942 (emphasis added). 1986On appeal, the Addison court reversed, asserting that while the limitation period for governmental tort claims was “mandatory and must be strictly complied with * * id. 146 Cal.Rptr. at 225 , 578 P.2d at 942 , application of the doctrine of equitable tolling was not precluded when “the harsh impact of technical rules * * * might otherwise prevent a good faith litigant from having a day in court.” Addison, 21 Cal.3d at 316 , 146 Cal.Rptr. at 225 , 578 P.2d at 942 (emphasis added). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ocana v. American Furniture Co.
green
2 sentences2014Furniture Co., 2004-NMSC-018, ¶¶ 15-18 , 135 N.M. 539 , 91 P.3d 58 (applying federal precedent to the doctrine of equitable tolling where a Title VII claim involved a federal statute). 2014Furniture Co., 2004-NMSC-018, ¶¶ 15-18 , 135 N.M. 539 , 91 P.3d 58 (applying federal precedent to the doctrine of equitable tolling where a Title VII claim involved a federal statute). | 3 | 2013–2014 |
Snow v. Warren Power & Machinery, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2015Snow v. Warren 18 Power & Mach., Inc., 2014-NMCA-054, ¶ 1 , 326 P.3d 33 . 2015Snow v. Warren Power & Mach., Inc., 2014-NMCA-054, ¶ 1 , 326 P.3d 33 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
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.