license revocation hearing (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

license revocation hearing in New Mexico

9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Maso v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATIONgreen
nm · 2004 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2007–2011
2 sentences

2011Additionally, a license revocation hearing is a 10 “summary administrative proceeding designed to handle license revocation matters 11 quickly.” Maso, 2004-NMSC-028, ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks and citation 12 omitted).

2007Cf. Maso v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2004-NMSC-028, ¶ 14 , 136 N.M. 161 , 96 P.3d 286 (holding, in a case where the petitioner argued that he had a right to be served with notice of a license revocation hearing in Spanish, that N.M.

12
Weiss v. New Mexico Board of Dentistrygreen
nm · 1990 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Bd. of Dentistry, 110 N.M. 574, 579 , 798 P.2d 175, 180 (1990) (holding that a prior criminal conviction was itself sufficient to support the Board of Dentistry revoking a dental license in a subsequent license revocation hearing); cf. New Mexico Corrections Department Policies, supra, CD-090101(A)(7) (“Any act, although not specifically listed in this policy, that would be either a felony or misdemeanor under the Criminal Code of the State of New Mexico or the Laws of the United States of America will constitute a misconduct violation under criteria established by this policy.”). {24} In focu

2012Bd. of Dentistry, 110 N.M. 574, 579 , 798 P.2d 175, 180 (1990) (holding that a prior criminal conviction was itself sufficient to support the Board of Dentistry revoking a dental license in a subsequent license revocation hearing); cf. New Mexico Corrections Department Policies, supra, CD-090101(A)(7) (“Any act, although not specifically listed in this policy, that would be either a felony or misdemeanor under the Criminal Code of the State of New Mexico or the Laws of the United States of America will constitute a misconduct violation under criteria established by this policy.”). {24} In focu

11
Dente v. State Taxation & Revenue Department, Motor Vehicle Divisiongreen
nmctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011The Maine Supreme Judicial Court aptly observed that “[rjequiring hearing examiners to apply the exclusionary rule would unnecessarily complicate and burden an administrative proceeding designed to focus on the single issue of whether a person was operating a vehicle with excessive alcohol in his blood.” Powell, 614 A.2d at 1307 ; see Dente, 1997-NMCA-099, ¶ 7 , 124 N.M. 93 , 946 P.2d 1104 (explaining that a license revocation hearing is “designed to be a summary administrative proceeding that handles revocation matters quickly”). {28} Driver analogizes license revocation to civil forfeiture o

2011The Maine Supreme Judicial Court aptly observed that “[rjequiring hearing examiners to apply the exclusionary rule would unnecessarily complicate and burden an administrative proceeding designed to focus on the single issue of whether a person was operating a vehicle with excessive alcohol in his blood.” Powell, 614 A.2d at 1307 ; see Dente, 1997-NMCA-099, ¶ 7 , 124 N.M. 93 , 946 P.2d 1104 (explaining that a license revocation hearing is “designed to be a summary administrative proceeding that handles revocation matters quickly”). {28} Driver analogizes license revocation to civil forfeiture o

11
State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Kennedygreen
nm · 1995 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011A license revocation hearing “is entirely separate and distinct from the proceeding to determine the guilt or innocence of the person as to the crime of DWI.” See Schwartz, 120 N.M. at 626 , 904 P.2d at 1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2011A license revocation hearing “is entirely separate and distinct from the proceeding to determine the guilt or innocence of the person as to the crime of DWI.” See Schwartz, 120 N.M. at 626 , 904 P.2d at 1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11
Forfeiture of $14,639 in US Currencygreen
nmctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See In re Forfeiture of Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($14,639), 120 N.M. 408 , 413, 902 P.2d 563 , 568 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding that exclusionary rule applies in forfeiture proceedings).

2011See In re Forfeiture of Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($14,639), 120 N.M. 408 , 413, 902 P.2d 563 , 568 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding that exclusionary rule applies in forfeiture proceedings).

11
Southwestern Creditors Assn. v. Garveygreen
calctapp · 1932 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion by 13 applying collateral estoppel in light of our decision in Bishop. 14 Moreover, this Court in Bishop stated that “we believe there are good policy 15 reasons for not applying collateral estoppel” in this context. 113 N.M. at 735 , 832 16 P.2d at 796.

11
Plummer v. Devoregreen
nmctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See Plummer, 114 N.M. at 245 , 836 P.2d at 1266 . {10} How must the State make this threshold showing in a license revocation hearing?

1998See Plummer, 114 N.M. at 245 , 836 P.2d at 1266 . {10} How must the State make this threshold showing in a license revocation hearing?

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
STATE TAXATION & REVENUE DEPT. v. Bargas green
nmctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2023In New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department v. Bargas, the petitioner’s license revocation hearing was scheduled 124 days after the notice of revocation because the petitioner’s counsel requested two continuances. 2000-NMCA- 103, ¶¶ 2-3, 129 N.M. 800 , 14 P.3d 538 .

2023In New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department v. Bargas, the petitioner’s license revocation hearing was scheduled 124 days after the notice of revocation because the petitioner’s counsel requested two continuances. 2000-NMCA- 103, ¶¶ 2-3, 129 N.M. 800 , 14 P.3d 538 .

22004–2023
Bierner v. State, Taxation & Revenue Department green
nmctapp · 1992
2 sentences

1993We recently held in Bierner v. State, 113 N.M. 696 , 831 P.2d 995 (Ct.App.1992), that the BAC at issue in a license-revocation hearing is the BAC at the time of the test, not at the time that the licensee was driving.

1993We recently held in Bierner v. State, 113 N.M. 696 , 831 P.2d 995 (Ct.App.1992), that the BAC at issue in a license-revocation hearing is the BAC at the time of the test, not at the time that the licensee was driving.

21993–1993
Powell v. Secretary of State green
me · 1992
1 sentence

2011The Maine Supreme Judicial Court aptly observed that “[rjequiring hearing examiners to apply the exclusionary rule would unnecessarily complicate and burden an administrative proceeding designed to focus on the single issue of whether a person was operating a vehicle with excessive alcohol in his blood.” Powell, 614 A.2d at 1307 ; see Dente, 1997-NMCA-099, ¶ 7 , 124 N.M. 93 , 946 P.2d 1104 (explaining that a license revocation hearing is “designed to be a summary administrative proceeding that handles revocation matters quickly”). {28} Driver analogizes license revocation to civil forfeiture o

12011–2011
State v. Bishop green
nmctapp · 1992
2 sentences

2011Bishop, 113 N.M. at 734 , 832 P.2d at 795 .

2011Bishop, 113 N.M. at 734 , 832 P.2d at 795 .

12011–2011

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-112 (7) NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-107 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-105 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-111.1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CO 18 (1971–2018) NY 11 (1983–2025) NM 9 (1993–2023) TX 8 (1997–2015) NC 7 (1978–2016) OH 7 (1982–2008) AK 6 (1999–2022) NV 6 (1998–2017) HI 5 (1995–2026) IL 3 (1979–2018) NE 3 (2000–2009) WV 3 (2010–2023) MO 3 (1999–2006) CT 2 (1991–2000) KS 2 (2006–2006) OK 2 (1989–2012) AZ 2 (1982–1995) WY 2 (1988–2011) MN 2 (1985–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check