Chavez v. Manville Products Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 32 district · 84 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““For an employee to recover under this new cause of action, he must demonstrate that he was discharged because he performed an act that public policy has authorized or would encourage, or because he refused to do something required of him by his employer that public policy would condemn.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Quiroz v. ConocoPhillips Co. · Shovelin v. Central New Mexico Electric Cooperative, Inc.

2. “The possibility of recovery may appear remote to the trial judge in the normal case involving a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. It may appear even more remote when proof is required by “clear and convincing evidence.” However, if the plaintiff has introduced a minimum quantum of evidence from which the jury could reasonably find in his favor under the applicable standard of proof, then the plaintiff is entitled to a jury determination. When the standard is clear and convincing evidence, the question for the trial judge is whether there is sufficient evidence introduced from which a reasonable juror could reach an “abiding conviction” as to the truth of the plaintiff’s claim. See Duke City Lumber Co. v. Terrel, 88 N.M. 299 , 540 P.2d 229 (1975); In re Foster, 102 N.M. 707 , 699 P.2d 638 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 734 , 700 P.2d 197 (1985); see also In re Fletcher, 94 N.M. 572 , 613 P.2d 714 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 94 N.M. 674 , 615 P.2d 991 (1980). In the instant case, we believe that the evidence presented by [plaintiff] met this threshold standard and, therefore, entry of a directed verdict against him was error. The evidence is entirely circumstantial, but we have long recognized that clear and convincing evidence may be circumstantial in nature. See Ledbetter v. Webb, 103 N.M. 597 , 711 P.2d 874 (1985); Sauter v. St. Michael’s College, 70 N.M. 380 , 374 P.2d 134 (1962).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eoff v. Forrest

3. “When we consider as true the following evidence presented by Chavez: that on April 4, the day after his refusal to participate in Manville’s lobbying effort, Loretta Turner, said to be informed of the refusal, placed an unwarranted critical memo in Chavez’ file concerning his unsafe use of certain equipment; that on the same day his immediate supervisor advised him that he had better be careful because “Loretta is after you”; that when Chavez requested an explanation from his immediate supervisor for the unauthorized use of his name in the lobbying effort, Manville, shortly thereafter, made a decision to terminate him; that after being “laid off’ for a month he was advised that his job had been eliminated; that after his termination the number of production crews remained unchanged at two, and Chavez’ supervisory position was taken by another employee who had for over five years been assigned to other duties; that Manville made no efforts to place Chavez, an employee of 20 years, in any other position, despite a company policy to the contrary, and instead listed him as being ineligible for future employment with Manville in any capacity, it was well within the province of the fact finder to reach an abiding conviction that the discharge was in response to his noncooperation with Manville’s legislative agenda.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lihosit v. I & W, INC.