Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the appointment of the New Mexico House of Representatives following the 2010 federal census. It was undisputed that the House was unconstitutionally apportioned. The Legislature then passed House Bill 39 to reapportion the House during a 2011 Special Session. The Governor vetoed the bill. Because lawmakers failed to create constitutionally-acceptable districts, the burden fell on the courts to draw a reapportionment map for the House. The Court appointed a retired district judge to oversee the judiciary's process. Petitioners filed petitions for a writ of superintending control to ask the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over the case, and to reverse the district court to adopt an alternative plan or remand the case with instructions regarding the legal standard that should be applied. After reading the parties' briefs and listening to oral argument, the Court entered an order articulating the legal principles that should govern redistricting litigation in New Mexico and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Maestas v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant Zirachuen Rivera drove through a DWI checkpoint in Bernalillo County and an officer suspected he had been drinking alcohol. Defendant showed signs of impairment on the standard field sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Defendant’s bench trial began in Metropolitan Court where assistant district attorney Rachel Bayless entered an appearance for both herself and Chris Mills, a purported attorney, on behalf of the State. At the conclusion of trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated. Upon leaving the courtroom, defense counsel overheard Mills telling Bayless that he had decided not to take the New Mexico bar exam. Upon learning that Mills was not a licensed New Mexico attorney, Defendant filed a motion for a mistrial and a new trial. Defendant later attached a certificate from the Chief Clerk of the New Mexico Supreme Court to affirm that Mills was not on the official roll of New Mexico attorneys.In its opinion in this case, the Supreme Court clarified the rules and judicial precedent pertaining to the authorized practice of law in all state courts. The Court held that practice is limited to "duly licensed attorneys who are members of the State Bar or otherwise authorized by this Court’s rules in specific, limited circumstances." Because the Court of Appeals relied on statutory expressions that appeared to permit the unauthorized practice of law in magistrate courts, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals while affirming Defendant's conviction. View "New Mexico v. Rivera" on Justia Law

The New Mexico Legislature passed House Bill 59 during the 2011 legislative session. The Bill sought to amend five different sections of the Unemployment Compensation Act in order to address an impending insolvency in the unemployment compensation fund. In addition to reducing benefits to the unemployed, House Bill 59 increased employer contributions to the unemployment compensation fund over contributions that would be made in 2011. Governor Susana Martinez partially vetoed the Bill by striking one of the variables necessary to calculate employer contributions beginning on January 1, 2012. The Petitioners, each of whom are legislators, sought a writ of mandamus to invalidate Governor Martinez's partial veto. Because the effect of the veto was to exempt most employers from making what would otherwise be mandatory contributions to the unemployment compensation fund for calendar year 2012, the Supreme Court held that the partial veto was invalid. The Court therefore issued a writ of mandamus to order that House Bill 59 be reinstated as passed by the Legislature. View "State of NM ex rel Stewart v. Martinez" on Justia Law

On certification from the federal district court, two questions came before the Supreme Court on whether the New Mexico Department of Labor's "Charge of Discrimination" form fairly and adequately allowed a claimant to exhaust administrative remedies and preserved the right to pursue further judicial remedies for individual liability claims under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA). In 2008, Plaintiff Michael Lobato filed two complaints with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging his employer, the New Mexico Environment Department, with discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff filed his administrative complaints by using the New Mexico Department of Labor, Human Rights Division's (NMHRD) official Charge of Discrimination form. Submitting this form to either the EEOC or the NMHRD constitutes filing with both agencies, as is noted on the form directly above the signature line. According to the instructions on the NMHRD's form, Plaintiff was required to explain the "PARTICULARS" of his charge. In December 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court stating in part that the EEOC "complaints [had been] processed to conclusion." The individually named defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that Plaintiff did not exhaust his NMHRA administrative remedies and preserve his right to sue any individual defendant not specifically identified in Plaintiff's NMHRD forms. The district court denied Defendants' motion for those identified by their job positions within the "PARTICULARS" narrative and sua sponte certified two questions to the Supreme Court regarding defendants not otherwise identified in those administrative forms. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that: (1) the NMHRD's Charge of Discrimination form failed to provide Plaintiff a fair and adequate opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies against individual defendants; and (2) because of this inadequacy, Plaintiff was not required to have exhausted administrative remedies against the previously unnamed individual defendants before pursuing his suit in the United States District Court. View "Lobato v. N.M. Environment Dept." on Justia Law

In the General Appropriation Act of 2011, the Legislature appropriated $150,000 to the Department of Finance and Administration "[f]or disbursement to the New Mexico mortgage finance authority to carry out the responsibilities, duties and provisions of the regional housing law. The Governor signed the General Appropriation Act of 2011; however, the Governor struck the "1" from the $150,000 appropriated by the Legislature to the Department of Finance and Administration, thereby changing or "scaling" the appropriation down to $50,000. The Governor stated that she vetoed the "1" because, although she agreed with the Legislature that regional housing oversight was a necessary expenditure, but she "disapproved of the excessive part of the appropriation." Citizens of the State of New Mexico, electors, taxpayers, and members of the New Mexico Legislature (Petitioners) subsequently filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition. Petitioners sought a writ restoring the full appropriation, claiming it was an unconstitutional application of the Governor's partial veto authority. The Supreme Court ordered that the Governor’s "partial veto that would allow scaling of appropriations [was] invalid and unconstitutional" and restored the $150,000 Legislative appropriation. View "New Mexico ex rel v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In 1985, at the behest of the City of Rio Rancho, Amrep Southwest Inc. recorded a plat for the Vista Hills West Unit 1 (VHWU1) subdivision, granting the City a drainage easement over ten acres identified as 'Parcel F.' In 2004, Amrep sold Parcel F to the Mares Group in fee simple, subject to the drainage easement. Mares in turn sold it to Cloudview Estates in fee simple, subject to the same recorded drainage easement. Cloudview asked the City to vacate the drainage easement and subdivide the parcel into thirty lots. The City declined because it found that the City and Amrep had originally intended to perpetually dedicate Parcel F as open space, and as such, had a claim to the property's title. The issue before the Supreme Court was: even if the City and Amrep intended Parcel F to be open space, what effect did the recorded plat designating Parcel F as a drainage easement have on Cloudview's subsequent purchase of Parcel F? Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Cloudview was a good faith purchaser and the plat did not specifically designate Parcel F for public use. The recorded plat unambiguously granted the City an easement for the specific purpose of drainage, thereby extinguishing any unrecorded interests and relieving Cloudview from its duty to diligently investigate whether the City had other adverse claims to the property title. The Court ruled in favor of Cloudview. View "City of Rio Rancho v. Amrep SW, Inc. " on Justia Law

This case consolidated appeals that challenged the Public Regulation Commission's (PRC) effort to comply with the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA).  The EUEA was amended by the Legislature, requiring the PRC to identify and remove regulatory disincentives to a public utility's implementation of energy efficiency programs.  To comply with this legislative mandate, the PRC issued a Final Order amending its Energy Efficiency Rules.  The Attorney General (AG) and the New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers (NMIEC) separately appealed the PRC's Final Order, challenging the Final Order on several grounds.  The Supreme Court consolidated both appeals, and after reviewing the record, annulled and vacated the PRC's Final Order. View "New Mexico Att'y General v. Public Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant TW Telecom of New Mexico (TW Telecom) appealed a final order issued by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) in "In the Matter of the Development of an Alternative Form of Regulation Plan for Qwest Corporation" (AFOR III Final Order). TW Telecom claimed that the PRC (1) adopted certain conclusions from a previous final order, lacking justification in the AFOR III record; (2) deregulated Qwest Corporation's (Qwest) rates in violation of the New Mexico Telecommunications Act and the separation of powers doctrine in the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) deprived TW Telecom of proper due process. The claims raised in this appeal involved three cases before the PRC that concerned the development of various alternative forms of regulation plans issued by the PRC, and Qwest's compliance with the terms and conditions therein.  The cases addressed various issues, including pricing provisions and detailed requirements for the filing of tariff changes, tariffs for new services, promotional offerings, packaged services, and individual contracts for services. Upon review, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated AFOR III Final Order and remanded the case back to the PRC for further proceedings. The Court concluded that the PRC indeed violated TW Telecom's due process because it adopted conclusions from a previous proceeding without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court did not address TW Telecom's second claim. View "TW Telecom of New Mexico v. New Mexico Public Regulation Comm'n" on Justia Law

Carol Sloan, a New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) Commissioner, was convicted and subsequently sentenced for aggravated battery and burglary. That same day, the Attorney General filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto asking the Supreme Court remove Ms. Sloan from office because of her felony convictions. Although Ms. Sloan did not dispute that she was convicted and sentenced for two felony offenses, she nonetheless maintained that those convictions did not disqualify her from continuing to hold public office until the expiration of the term for which she was elected. Ultimately the Court found that because Ms. Sloan was a convicted felon, forfeiture of her office was automatic. View "State ex rel. King v. Sloan" on Justia Law

Petitioners are organized labor representatives actively involved in representing public employees. They sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to prohibit the Governor from removing two members of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board. Those members had responsibility to adjudicate the merits of disputes that involved the Governor. The Governor appointed those members and now she sought to remove them. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that none of the PELRB members served at the pleasure of the Governor, though the Public Employee Bargaining Act obligates the Governor to appoint them. The Court found that constitutional due process required a "neutral tribunal with members who were free to deliberate without fear of removal by a frequent litigant" such as the Governor. The Governor was enjoined from removing the PELRB members.