case announcing the new rule in New Mexico

2024Second, if the case announcing the new rule does not expressly declare that it should apply prospectively, then the presumption of retroactivity can “be overcome by a sufficiently weighty combination of one or more of the Chevron Oil factors.” Id.; see Chevron Oil Company v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 (1971) (acknowledging that states incorporate the Chevron factors while affirming that “[w]hatever freedom state courts may enjoy to limit the retroactive operation of their own interpretations of state law cannot extend to their interpretations of federal law” (citation omitted)), disapproved of

2021“Absent such a declaration, the presumption may be overcome by a sufficiently weighty combination of one or more . . . factors.” Id. (recognizing the three-factor test adopted from Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-107 (1971)). {14} However, Howell was issued by the United States Supreme Court and announced or applied a rule of federal law.

2009Also, to the extent that Callahan suggests that we apply any standard rooted in the NLRA, Callahan itself was not decided until after Plaintiff could have filed a timely complaint under the six-month limitation period. {12} Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., 118 N.M. 391, 398 , 881 P.2d 1376, 1383 (1994), provides that there is “a presumption that a new rule adopted by a judicial decision in a civil case will operate retroactively.” However, such a presumption “can be overcome by an express declaration, in the case announcing the new rule, that the rule is intended to operate wi

2009Also, to the extent that Callahan suggests that we apply any standard rooted in the NLRA, Callahan itself was not decided until after Plaintiff could have filed a timely complaint under the six-month limitation period. {12} Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., 118 N.M. 391, 398 , 881 P.2d 1376, 1383 (1994), provides that there is “a presumption that a new rule adopted by a judicial decision in a civil case will operate retroactively.” However, such a presumption “can be overcome by an express declaration, in the case announcing the new rule, that the rule is intended to operate wi

2024In this case, both of the communications at issue were focused on the impact of the superintendent’s conduct on the staff and students of the school district. [1 RP 221-22, 2 RP 348] In his email correspondence to the board, Plaintiff Griego made numerous references to the school community as the impetus for his communication, including the following: “professional conversations with district personnel,” “[c]oncern for our students, personnel, and for the district’s future,” “the overall [e]ffect (anger and sadness) of many staff,” “negative impact on our students,” “the common message . . . f

2024In this case, both of the communications at issue were focused on the impact of the superintendent’s conduct on the staff and students of the school district. [1 RP 221-22, 2 RP 348] In his email correspondence to the board, Plaintiff Griego made numerous references to the school community as the impetus for his communication, including the following: “professional conversations with district personnel,” “[c]oncern for our students, personnel, and for the district’s future,” “the overall [e]ffect (anger and sadness) of many staff,” “negative impact on our students,” “the common message . . . f

2024Id. (emphasis added).

2024Second, if the case announcing the new rule does not expressly declare that it should apply prospectively, then the presumption of retroactivity can “be overcome by a sufficiently weighty combination of one or more of the Chevron Oil factors.” Id.; see Chevron Oil Company v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 (1971) (acknowledging that states incorporate the Chevron factors while affirming that “[w]hatever freedom state courts may enjoy to limit the retroactive operation of their own interpretations of state law cannot extend to their interpretations of federal law” (citation omitted)), disapproved of

1994See, e.g., Lopez, 98 N.M. at 632 , 651 P.2d at 1276 (applying decision to parties in case “for having afforded us the opportunity to change an outmoded and unjust rule of law” and to parties in future cases “in which the damages and injuries arise after the date of the mandate in this case”).

1994See, e.g., Lopez, 98 N.M. at 632 , 651 P.2d at 1276 (applying decision to parties in case “for having afforded us the opportunity to change an outmoded and unjust rule of law” and to parties in future cases “in which the damages and injuries arise after the date of the mandate in this case”).