8 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sarracino v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2006In addition to the special relationship exception, the general rule does not apply “ ‘if the defendant should have recognized that his or her actions were likely to lead to that criminal activity.’ ” Herrera, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 21 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (quoting Sarracino v. Martinez, 117 N.M. 193, 195-96 , 870 P.2d 155, 157-58 (Ct.App.1994)). 2006In addition to the special relationship exception, the general rule does not apply “ ‘if the defendant should have recognized that his or her actions were likely to lead to that criminal activity.’ ” Herrera, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 21 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (quoting Sarracino v. Martinez, 117 N.M. 193, 195-96 , 870 P.2d 155, 157-58 (Ct.App.1994)). | 2 | 2 |
Cary v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co.green2 sentences2004See id. at 469 (stating that “[t]he application of a strict privity of contract requirement ... would allow [entities] to act with impunity in the service of their own self-interest, in disregard of th[e] underlying ... principles upon which the special relationship exception to the privity requirement exists”). 2004See id. at 469 (stating that "[t]he application of a strict privity of contract requirement ... would allow [entities] to act with impunity in the service of their own self-interest, in disregard of th[e] underlying ... principles upon which the special relationship exception to the privity requirement *116 exists"). | 1 | 1 |
Uhlrig v. Hardergreen2 sentences1999As observed by the court in Liebson, two exceptions have been recognized: The first exception, known as the special relationship doctrine, “exists when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual____” The second exception, sometimes referred to as the “danger creation” theory, provides that a state may also be liable for an individual’s safety “if it created the danger that harmed the individual____” Id., 73 F.3d at 276 (quoting Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 and DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199-200 , 109 S.Ct. 998 ) (citatio 1999As observed by the court in Liebson, two exceptions have been recognized: The first exception, known as the special relationship doctrine, “exists when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual____” The second exception, sometimes referred to as the “danger creation” theory, provides that a state may also be liable for an individual’s safety “if it created the danger that harmed the individual____” Id., 73 F.3d at 276 (quoting Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 and DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199-200 , 109 S.Ct. 998 ) (citatio | 1 | 1 |
Liebson v. New Mexico Corrections Departmentgreen2 sentences1999As observed by the court in Liebson, two exceptions have been recognized: The first exception, known as the special relationship doctrine, “exists when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual____” The second exception, sometimes referred to as the “danger creation” theory, provides that a state may also be liable for an individual’s safety “if it created the danger that harmed the individual____” Id., 73 F.3d at 276 (quoting Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 and DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199-200 , 109 S.Ct. 998 ) (citatio 1999See Collins, 503 U.S. at 128 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 (Due Process Clause held not to guarantee city employees a workplace free of unreasonable risks of harm; only the most egregious official conduct or actions which shock the conscience can be said to be “arbitrary ... in a constitutional sense.”); DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199 , 200 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. 998 ; Liebson, 73 F.3d at 276-77 (removal of guard from prison library, leaving librarian unprotected and subject to sexual assault did not fall within ambit of “created danger” exception so as to render defendants liable to claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). {3 | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. City of Harker Heightsgreen2 sentences1999See Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 (where third party, not a state actor, causes the injury complained of, plaintiff must allege a constitutionally cognizable danger); Henderson v. Gunther, 931 P.2d 1150, 1160 (Colo.1997) (en banc) (defendants not liable under “creation of danger” exception to civil rights law to prison employee attacked and held hostage by inmate); see also Collins, 503 U.S. at 126-27 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 (declining to characterize work-related hazards that resulted in death of decedent as violation of decedent’s civil rights). 1999See Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 (where third party, not a state actor, causes the injury complained of, plaintiff must allege a constitutionally cognizable danger); Henderson v. Gunther, 931 P.2d 1150, 1160 (Colo.1997) (en banc) (defendants not liable under “creation of danger” exception to civil rights law to prison employee attacked and held hostage by inmate); see also Collins, 503 U.S. at 126-27 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 (declining to characterize work-related hazards that resulted in death of decedent as violation of decedent’s civil rights). | 1 | 1 |
Andrews v. Stallingsgreen2 sentences1999The purpose of the special-relationship exception, it seems, is to address circumstances in which the limited “public” to which the disclosure is made is the portion of the public whose opinion matters most to the injured party — “‘such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors.’ ” See id., (quoting Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80 , 257 N.W.2d 522, 531 (1977)). {11} We indicated in Andrews v. Stallings, 119 N.M. 478, 493 , 892 P.2d 611, 626 (Ct.App.1995), that a report of suspected wrongdoing to appropriate authorities does not meet the requirement for publicity u 1999The purpose of the special-relationship exception, it seems, is to address circumstances in which the limited “public” to which the disclosure is made is the portion of the public whose opinion matters most to the injured party — “‘such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors.’ ” See id., (quoting Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80 , 257 N.W.2d 522, 531 (1977)). {11} We indicated in Andrews v. Stallings, 119 N.M. 478, 493 , 892 P.2d 611, 626 (Ct.App.1995), that a report of suspected wrongdoing to appropriate authorities does not meet the requirement for publicity u | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Gunthergreen1 sentence1999See Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 (where third party, not a state actor, causes the injury complained of, plaintiff must allege a constitutionally cognizable danger); Henderson v. Gunther, 931 P.2d 1150, 1160 (Colo.1997) (en banc) (defendants not liable under “creation of danger” exception to civil rights law to prison employee attacked and held hostage by inmate); see also Collins, 503 U.S. at 126-27 , 112 S.Ct. 1061 (declining to characterize work-related hazards that resulted in death of decedent as violation of decedent’s civil rights). | 1 | 1 |
Beaumont v. Browngreen2 sentences1999The purpose of the special-relationship exception, it seems, is to address circumstances in which the limited “public” to which the disclosure is made is the portion of the public whose opinion matters most to the injured party — “‘such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors.’ ” See id., (quoting Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80 , 257 N.W.2d 522, 531 (1977)). {11} We indicated in Andrews v. Stallings, 119 N.M. 478, 493 , 892 P.2d 611, 626 (Ct.App.1995), that a report of suspected wrongdoing to appropriate authorities does not meet the requirement for publicity u 1999The purpose of the special-relationship exception, it seems, is to address circumstances in which the limited “public” to which the disclosure is made is the portion of the public whose opinion matters most to the injured party — “‘such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors.’ ” See id., (quoting Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80 , 257 N.W.2d 522, 531 (1977)). {11} We indicated in Andrews v. Stallings, 119 N.M. 478, 493 , 892 P.2d 611, 626 (Ct.App.1995), that a report of suspected wrongdoing to appropriate authorities does not meet the requirement for publicity u | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2014Comm ’rs, 1999-NMCA-110, ¶ 21 , 127 N.M. 785 , 987 P.2d 1172 (noting, in a case involving negligent misrepresentation, that the question of foreseeability is for the jury to decide). {28} Foreseeability can be established through evidence of one of the two exceptions noted in Johnstone, including the “special relationship” exception that was the focus of the jury instruction conference in the district court. 1 One element of the special relationship exception is “knowledge of the decedent’s risk of suicide.” Johnstone, 2006-NMCA-119, ¶ 11 . {29} In this case, there appears to be no dispute tha 2014Comm ’rs, 1999-NMCA-110, ¶ 21 , 127 N.M. 785 , 987 P.2d 1172 (noting, in a case involving negligent misrepresentation, that the question of foreseeability is for the jury to decide). {28} Foreseeability can be established through evidence of one of the two exceptions noted in Johnstone, including the “special relationship” exception that was the focus of the jury instruction conference in the district court. 1 One element of the special relationship exception is “knowledge of the decedent’s risk of suicide.” Johnstone, 2006-NMCA-119, ¶ 11 . {29} In this case, there appears to be no dispute tha | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Johnstone v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2014Comm ’rs, 1999-NMCA-110, ¶ 21 , 127 N.M. 785 , 987 P.2d 1172 (noting, in a case involving negligent misrepresentation, that the question of foreseeability is for the jury to decide). {28} Foreseeability can be established through evidence of one of the two exceptions noted in Johnstone, including the “special relationship” exception that was the focus of the jury instruction conference in the district court. 1 One element of the special relationship exception is “knowledge of the decedent’s risk of suicide.” Johnstone, 2006-NMCA-119, ¶ 11 . {29} In this case, there appears to be no dispute tha 2014Comm’rs, 1999-NMCA-110, ¶ 21 , 127 N.M. 785 , 987 P.2d 1172 (noting, in a case involving negligent misrepresentation, that the question of foreseeability is for the jury to decide). {28} Foreseeability can be established through evidence of one of the two exceptions noted in Johnstone, including the “special relationship” exception that was the focus of the jury instruction conference in the district court.1 One element of the special relationship exception is “knowledge of the decedent’s risk of suicide.” Johnstone, 2006-NMCA-119, ¶ 11 . {29} In this case, there appears to be no dispute that | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality Pontiac
green
2 sentences2006In addition to the special relationship exception, the general rule does not apply “ ‘if the defendant should have recognized that his or her actions were likely to lead to that criminal activity.’ ” Herrera, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 21 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (quoting Sarracino v. Martinez, 117 N.M. 193, 195-96 , 870 P.2d 155, 157-58 (Ct.App.1994)). 2006In addition to the special relationship exception, the general rule does not apply “ ‘if the defendant should have recognized that his or her actions were likely to lead to that criminal activity.’ ” Herrera, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 21 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (quoting Sarracino v. Martinez, 117 N.M. 193, 195-96 , 870 P.2d 155, 157-58 (Ct.App.1994)). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
green
1 sentence2024Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70 , 309 P.3d 53 (stating that an appellate court will not make arguments on behalf of the appellant). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
green
2 sentences1999As observed by the court in Liebson, two exceptions have been recognized: The first exception, known as the special relationship doctrine, “exists when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual____” The second exception, sometimes referred to as the “danger creation” theory, provides that a state may also be liable for an individual’s safety “if it created the danger that harmed the individual____” Id., 73 F.3d at 276 (quoting Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 and DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199-200 , 109 S.Ct. 998 ) (citatio 1999As observed by the court in Liebson, two exceptions have been recognized: The first exception, known as the special relationship doctrine, “exists when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual____” The second exception, sometimes referred to as the “danger creation” theory, provides that a state may also be liable for an individual’s safety “if it created the danger that harmed the individual____” Id., 73 F.3d at 276 (quoting Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 572 and DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 199-200 , 109 S.Ct. 998 ) (citatio | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Miller v. Motorola, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999The purpose of the special-relationship exception, it seems, is to address circumstances in which the limited “public” to which the disclosure is made is the portion of the public whose opinion matters most to the injured party — “‘such as fellow employees, club members, church members, family, or neighbors.’ ” See id., (quoting Beaumont v. Brown, 401 Mich. 80 , 257 N.W.2d 522, 531 (1977)). {11} We indicated in Andrews v. Stallings, 119 N.M. 478, 493 , 892 P.2d 611, 626 (Ct.App.1995), that a report of suspected wrongdoing to appropriate authorities does not meet the requirement for publicity u | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.