Legal Opinion
Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided September 22, 1995No. 21470PublishedCited by 74 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MINZNER, Justice.
Plaintiff-Appellant Imogene Coleman (Coleman) appeals from a district court order dismissing her claims of intentional and negligent spoliation of evidence made against her former employer, Eddy Potash, Inc. (Eddy Potash). We are presented with the questions whether Coleman’s allegations of intentional and negligent spoliation of evidence state a claim for relief under New Mexico law and, if so, whether those claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA or Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 52-1-6 (effective January 1, 1992), -8, -9…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Smith v. Howard Johnson Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Schmitz v. SmentowskiNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Rodgers v. St. Mary's Hosp. of DecaturIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
- Smith v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Hazen v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1986
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Trevino v. OrtegaTexas Supreme Court · 1998
- Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality PontiacNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
- Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2001
- Rosenblit v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1999
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.