6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salswedel v. Enerpharm, Ltd.green2 sentences1997“Under the ‘dual persona’ Doctrine, an employer may become a third person, vulnerable to a tort suit by an employee, if, and only if, [the employer] possesses a second persona completely independent from and unrelated to [its] status as employer.” Salswedel v. Enerpharm, Ltd., 107 N.M. 728, 731 , 764 P.2d 499, 502 (Ct.App.1988) (citing 6 Larson, supra, at § 72.81 (1988)). 1997“The central requirement is that there be a separate and distinct legal persona rather than merely a second theory of liability in the same person.” Id. at 732, 764 P.2d at 503 ; see also 6 Larson, supra, at § 72.61(c). 8 Because both Singhas and Veronica Soriano’s dependents are receiving benefits from the State of New Mexico, and because Section 52-l-3(D) specifically provides that “[f]or purposes of this section, ‘state’ or ‘state agency’ means the State of New Mexico or any of its branches, agencies, departments, boards, instrumentalities or institutions,” § 52-l-3(C), we hold that the “Du | 2 | 2 |
Morales v. Reynoldsgreen2 sentences2024See Morales v. Reynolds, 2004-NMCA-098, ¶ 14 , 136 N.M. 280 , 97 P.3d 612 (determining that the requirements and comparable degree of egregiousness of Delgado guide the plaintiff’s burden to overcome a pretrial motion concerning the conduct alleged by the plaintiff). 2024See Morales v. Reynolds, 2004-NMCA-098, ¶ 14 , 136 N.M. 280 , 97 P.3d 612 (determining that the requirements and comparable degree of egregiousness of Delgado guide the plaintiff’s burden to overcome a pretrial motion concerning the conduct alleged by the plaintiff). | 1 | 1 |
Moffat v. Branchgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Moffat v. Branch, 2002- 16 NMCA-067, ¶ 23, 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 (“There is no question that the district 17 court’s letter decision did not constitute a final order. 2013See, e.g., Moffat v. Branch, 2002- 16 NMCA-067, ¶ 23, 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 (“There is no question that the district 17 court’s letter decision did not constitute a final order. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Padilla v. Wall Colmonoy Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Padilla v. Wall Colmonoy Corp., 2006-NMCA-137, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 630 , 145 P.3d 110 . 2015Padilla v. Wall Colmonoy Corp., 2006-NMCA-137, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 630 , 145 P.3d 110 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in 4 concluding that the facts alleged in his amended complaint failed to state a claim 5 within the exclusivity exception to the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act (the 6 Act), first recognized in Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034 , 131 7 N.M. 272 , 34 P.3d 1148 . 2014Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in 4 concluding that the facts alleged in his amended complaint failed to state a claim 5 within the exclusivity exception to the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act (the 6 Act), first recognized in Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034 , 131 7 N.M. 272 , 34 P.3d 1148 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.