6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenzgreen2 sentences2002Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 554-55 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 , 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) (holding that Congress may enforce wage requirements against a local government's mass-transit authority); see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 160 , 112 S.Ct. 2408 , 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (stating that in previous cases, the Court had interpreted the Tenth Amendment to authorize Congress to subject the states to generally applicable laws). [6] Furthermore, in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 116 (Colo.1992), we held that a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim. 2002Furthermore, in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorent, 823 P.2d 100, 116 (Colo.1992), we held that a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim. | 2 | 2 |
Goodman v. Wesley Medical Center, L.L.C.green2 sentences2022Ctr., L.L.C . , 78 P.3d 817, 822-23 (Kan. 2003) ( “It would be both troublesome and unsettling to the state of the law if we were to allow a retaliatory discharge claim to be based on a personal opinion of wrongdoing.”). 2022See Goodman , 78 P.3d at 823 (“Becau se the [Kansas Nurse Practice Act] does not provide definite or specifi c rules, regulations, or laws, it 26 cannot be the basis for a retaliatory discharge claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Middleton v. Hartmangreen2 sentences2020Noting that the plaintiff had conceded that her retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 215 (1994), could lie in tort for purposes of the CGIA, we cited to Martin Marietta for the notion that “a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim.” Middleton, 45 P.3d at 730 n.6. 13 both tort claims remain viable as alternative causes of action even after the enactment of CADA. 2020See id. at 70 n.4. ¶77 Even if the majority is correct that CADA claims themselves are not torts, it fails to address why the injuries underlying those claims could not lie in tort. | 1 | 1 |
New York v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 554-55 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 , 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) (holding that Congress may enforce wage requirements against a local government's mass-transit authority); see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 160 , 112 S.Ct. 2408 , 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (stating that in previous cases, the Court had interpreted the Tenth Amendment to authorize Congress to subject the states to generally applicable laws). [6] Furthermore, in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 116 (Colo.1992), we held that a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim. 2002Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 554-55 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 , 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) (holding that Congress may enforce wage requirements against a local government's mass-transit authority); see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 160 , 112 S.Ct. 2408 , 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (stating that in previous cases, the Court had interpreted the Tenth Amendment to authorize Congress to subject the states to generally applicable laws). [6] Furthermore, in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 116 (Colo.1992), we held that a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim. | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2002See also Holland v. Bd. of County Comm'ns, 883 P.2d 500, 508 (Colo.Ct.App.1994). [1] The question of whether individual defendants such as Charles Middleton and Leon Travis are "employers" for purposes of the FLSA is one which the court of appeals resolved in the affirmative. 2002See also Holland v. Bd. of County Comm'ns, 883 P.2d 500, 508 (Colo.Ct.App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. Mariani
green
1 sentence2022As noted above, the public policy “must be clearly mandated such that the acceptabl e behavior is concrete and discernible as opposed to a broad hortatory statement of policy that gives little direction as to the boun ds of proper behavior.” Maria ni , 916 P.2d at 525 . ¶ 52 Other than her general reference to a failure to monitor fetal vital signs properly, Castillo did not plead how Denver Health failed to conform to an applicable standa rd of care. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004The WPP, enacted as an amendment to the Act, provides a remedial scheme for an airline employee who has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against for providing the "employer or the Federal Government [with] information relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order, regulation or standard of the Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating to air carrier safety ... or any other law of the United States." 49 U.S.C. § 42121 (a)(1). *252 The WPP contains "no reference to preemption and no indication that the WPP changed the seope of [the Act | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
green
2 sentences2002Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 554-55 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 , 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) (holding that Congress may enforce wage requirements against a local government's mass-transit authority); see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 160 , 112 S.Ct. 2408 , 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (stating that in previous cases, the Court had interpreted the Tenth Amendment to authorize Congress to subject the states to generally applicable laws). [6] Furthermore, in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 116 (Colo.1992), we held that a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim. 2002Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 554-55 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 , 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) (holding that Congress may enforce wage requirements against a local government's mass-transit authority); see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 160 , 112 S.Ct. 2408 , 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (stating that in previous cases, the Court had interpreted the Tenth Amendment to authorize Congress to subject the states to generally applicable laws). [6] Furthermore, in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 116 (Colo.1992), we held that a retaliatory discharge claim is a common law tort claim. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Salida School District R-32-J v. Morrison
green
1 sentence1994In Salida School District R-32-J v. Morrison, 732 P.2d 1160 (Colo.1987), we held that the referee's findings in an unemployment proceeding that the teacher was discharged by the school district for her outspokenness did not operate to collaterally estop the school district from denying a retaliatory discharge claim in the teacher's subsequent 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.