Cooper v. Curry

35 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    113 N.M. 736 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 16 times

    It is undisputed that the hospital employed the nurses who performed the transfusion. Plaintiff has not alleged that the hospital employed Dr. Dumitriu. Based on facts similar to those pled in this case, this court has determined previously that the hospital had no duty to obtain Johnson's informed consent before transfusing her. See Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 420, 589 P.2d 201, 204 (Ct.App. 1978). In Cooper, we held that a hospital had no duty to obtain a patient's informed consent to a surgical procedure ordered by a non-employee physician.

  2. Favela v. City of Las Cruces ex rel. Las Cruces Police Dep't

    431 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (D.N.M. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    See Tr. at 10:8-11 (Court). Memorial Medical, Proctor, Pitts, Reveles, and Branch asserted that the Supreme Court of New Mexico has not overruled Johnson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1992-NMCA-039, 113 N.M. 736, 832 P.2d 797, or Cooper v. Curry, 1978-NMCA-104, 92 N.M. 417, 589 P.2d 201, and that "both of those cases remain good law." Tr. at 10:17 (Morrow).

  3. MS v. E. N.M. Mental Retardation Servs.

    No. CIV 13-628 RB-GBW (D.N.M. Jun. 16, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    In order to form a joint venture under New Mexico law, "there must be a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose, a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, a mutual right to control, a right to share in the profits, and a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained." Cooper v. Curry, 589 P.2d 201, 205 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978); see also N.M.R. Ann. Unif. Jury Instructions § 13-410 (stating jury instructions for formation of a joint venture). Based on the Third Amended Complaint's allegations, a factfinder could reasonably find a community of interest between ENMRSH and the Spencer Foundation.

  4. Faniola v. Mazda Motor Corp.

    No. CIV-02-1011 JB/RLP (D.N.M. Apr. 22, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    In re Groff, 898 F.2d 1475, 1476-77 (10th Cir. 1990). In Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 589 P.2d 201 (Ct.App. 1978), the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that a joint venture or enterprise includes the following elements: (i) a community of interest to perform a common purpose; (ii) a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter; (iii) a mutual right to control; (iv) a right to share in the profits; and (v) a duty to share in the losses. See id., at 421, 589 P.2d at 205.

  5. Houghland v. Grant

    119 N.M. 422 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that contracted physicians are apparent agents of a hospital that holds itself out as an emergency care provider inducing patients to rely on the hospital for emergency care, and hospital is liable under respondeat superior

    Requiring a physician to comply with a hospital's policies and procedures does not per se indicate that the hospital has sufficient control over the physician to indicate an employer-employee relationship. See Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 419-20, 589 P.2d 201, 203-04 (Ct.App. 1978), cert. quashed, 92 N.M. 353, 588 P.2d 554 (1979). By requiring compliance with its policies and procedures, a hospital may be merely contributing to the maintenance of professional standards, not controlling the physician.

  6. Roderick v. Lake

    108 N.M. 696 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that purpose of the statute is to protect the motoring public

    See Boise City Farmers Coop. v. Layton, 83 N.M. 248, 490 P.2d 965 (1971). Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 589 P.2d 201 (Ct.App. 1978), holds, "As a general rule, in order to constitute a joint adventure there must be a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose, a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, a mutual right to control, a right to share in the profits, and a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained."

  7. Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance

    54 Wn. App. 162 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 17 times
    Relying on Quimby and Jaramillo in holding that negligence claims asserted against hospital did not include entrepreneurial aspect of hospital's operations, so that claims fell outside reach of state's consumer protection act

    A hospital may be held vicariously liable if an employee physician fails to obtain consent. See Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 589 P.2d 201, 204 (Ct. App. 1978). However, there is no evidence Dr. Graham was an employee of Sacred Heart, only that he had staff privileges.

  8. Hansler v. Bass

    106 N.M. 382 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Finding the definition of partnership relevant in determining the existence of a joint venture, and stating that a joint venture is a "partnership for a single transaction"

    Nor does the revolving credit loan made by Fine Line to Allen (to be repaid by a "percentage of business") raise a fact issue as to joint venture or partnership. Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 589 P.2d 201 (Ct.App. 1978), in discussing the nature of a joint venture, quoted with approval from another case that: "As a general rule, in order to constitute a joint adventure there must be a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose, a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, a mutual right to control, a right to share in the profits, and a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained."

  9. Dixon v. Stone Truck Line, Inc.

    2:19-CV-000945-JCH-GJF (D.N.M. Nov. 23, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Cooper v. Curry, 1978-NMCA-1-4, ¶ 22, 92 N.M. 417 (quotation omitted). Plaintiff's allegations fall short of showing non-conclusory facts that plausibly indicate that Russell Stover, Ryan, and Stone Truck had a joint proprietary interest in the transportation supply chain or a right to share in profits.

  10. Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, Inc.

    600 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (D.N.M. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Evaluating a civil-conspiracy claim under New Mexico law and stating that "evidence of a conspiracy will rarely be obvious. Instead, evidence of a conspiracy will generally be circumstantial. What is important is that the evidence is not speculative."

    [I]n order to constitute a joint adventure there must be a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose, a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, a mutual right to control, a right to share in the profits, and a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained. Response at 23 (quoting Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 421, 589 P.2d 201, 205 (Ct.App. 1978)) (brackets added by Response); Memorandum at 7-8 (citing Cooper v. Curry). While the Court has some reservations about the cause of action, there is evidence supporting the elements that the parties have described to the Court, precluding summary judgment. The same evidence underlying the civil-conspiracy claim is evidence of a common purpose between USAA and the Dealerships.