Romero v. Earl

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an injured worker's assignment of compensation proceeds to a doctor was enforceable because the New Mexico statute did not specifically address assignments
• holding that an injured worker's assignment of compensation proceeds to a doctor was enforceable because the New Mexico statute did not specifically address assignments
• stating that “[consideration adequate to support a pi-omise is essential to enforcement of the contract and must be bargained for by the parties”
• holding attorney liable for failing to honor the client’s assignment to a physician
• explaining that consideration must be “bargained for by the parties. Something is bargained for ‘if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise.’ ”
• stating consideration adequate to support a promise is essential to enforcement of the contract and must be bargained for by the parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).