8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.green2 sentences1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it 1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it | 2 | 3 |
Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeckgreen2 sentences1990Cf. In re Apodaca (no evidence that the color of employee’s hair significantly affected the employer’s business); Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. at 577 , 555 P.2d at 698 (“inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances” not misconduct) (emphasis added) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60 , 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)). 1990Cf. In re Apodaca (no evidence that the color of employee’s hair significantly affected the employer’s business); Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. at 577 , 555 P.2d at 698 (“inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances” not misconduct) (emphasis added) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60 , 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)). | 2 | 2 |
Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Departmentgreen2 sentences1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it 1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. NM DEPT. OF LABOR, EMP. SEC.green2 sentences1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it 1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. Department of Laborgreen1 sentence1990See also Coleman v. Department of Labor, 288 A.2d 285 (Del.Super.1972) (one incident of being drunk on job and brandishing a realistic toy gun is wanton behavior not requiring prior warning before termination); Jackson v. Doyal, 198 So.2d 469 (La.Ct.App.1967) (an employee’s deliberate violation of a reasonable rule in connection with his work is sufficient to constitute willful misconduct; misconduct should be determined not on the basis of the number of violations of a rule, but by the nature of the violation). | 1 | 1 |
Weston v. Gritman Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1984“Misconduct,” as defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 734 (1977), includes conduct of an employee which amounts to “intentional wrongdoing * * * deliberate violation of a law or standard * * * [or] improper behavior.” Similarly, the term “misconduct” has been interpreted to mean a “ ‘wilful, intentional disregard of [an] employer’s interest; a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules; or a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employees.’ ” Weston v. Gritman Memorial Hospital, 99 Idaho 717, 719 , 587 P.2d 1252, 1254 (1978). 1984“Misconduct,” as defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 734 (1977), includes conduct of an employee which amounts to “intentional wrongdoing * * * deliberate violation of a law or standard * * * [or] improper behavior.” Similarly, the term “misconduct” has been interpreted to mean a “ ‘wilful, intentional disregard of [an] employer’s interest; a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules; or a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employees.’ ” Weston v. Gritman Memorial Hospital, 99 Idaho 717, 719 , 587 P.2d 1252, 1254 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Hickenbottom v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Boardgreen1 sentence1984See also Hickenbottom v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 273 A.2d 475 (D.C.App.1971). | 1 | 1 |
Bridges v. Western Electric Co.green2 sentences1984Bridges v. Western Electric Co., 304 So.2d 850, 852 (La. 1984Bridges v. Western Electric Co., 304 So.2d 850, 852 (La.App.1974) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.green2 sentences1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it 1996We distinguish this case from those in which the employee has committed a deliberate violation of a rule or order, or committed an affirmative act of misconduct that is grounds for immediate termination without notice or warning, cf. Sanchez v. New Mexico Dep’t of Labor, 109 N.M. 447, 452 , 786 P.2d 674, 679 (1990) (upholding denial of unemployment benefits to employee who had willfully violated reasonable and known rule prohibiting employees from opening or closing store alone, had failed to sign the log indicating his presence, and had disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fry
green
1 sentence2020“For an inadvertent remark of the type at issue in this case, we have held that the trial court’s offer to give a curative instruction, even if refused by the defendant, is sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect.” Fry, 2006-NMSC-001, ¶ 53 ; see also State v. Samora, 2013- NMSC-038, ¶ 22, 307 P.3d 328 (holding that the defendant was not entitled to a mistrial when the witness’s remark was not a deliberate violation of a pretrial order and “was therefore inadvertent and curable by a limiting instruction”). {9} Neither party addressed this general rule in their briefing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Malloy
green
1 sentence2016Id. at ¶ 23 16 (concluding that there is no reason to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search 17 warrant notwithstanding technical violations without a showing of prejudice to the 18 defendant or a deliberate violation of the rule). 8 1 CONCLUSION 2 {13} Because the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress 3 and Defendant has not raised any other claims of error with regard to his tampering 4 with evidence conviction, that conviction is affirmed. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jackson v. Doyal
green
1 sentence1990See also Coleman v. Department of Labor, 288 A.2d 285 (Del.Super.1972) (one incident of being drunk on job and brandishing a realistic toy gun is wanton behavior not requiring prior warning before termination); Jackson v. Doyal, 198 So.2d 469 (La.Ct.App.1967) (an employee’s deliberate violation of a reasonable rule in connection with his work is sufficient to constitute willful misconduct; misconduct should be determined not on the basis of the number of violations of a rule, but by the nature of the violation). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ware v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence1980In Ware v. Brown, 147 So.2d 455 (La.Ct. of App. 1962), the court concluded that the employee had made no reasonable effort to notify his employer of his intended absence, a deliberate violation of the company’s rules, as well as a disregard of the employer’s interest, since the company had no way of knowing of the claimant’s whereabouts or how he could be reached. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.