New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 12-2A-8 (2026)

Prospective operation.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly
provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.

History: Laws 1997, ch. 173, § 8.

ANNOTATIONS

Effective dates. — Laws 1997, ch. 173 § 22 made the Uniform Statute and Rule
Construction Act effective July 1, 1997.

Extending a statute of limitations. — Although the extension of a statute of limitations
cannot revive a previously time-barred prosecution, it can extend an unexpired limitation
period because such extension does not impair vested rights acquired under prior law,
require new obligations, impose new duties or affix new disabilities to past transactions.
Because capital felonies and first-degree violent felonies committed after July 1, 1982,
were not time-barred as of the effective date of the 1997 amendment of Section 30-1-8
NMSA 1978, the legislature intended the 1997 amendment to apply to these crimes.
State v. Morales, 2010-NMSC-026, 148 N.M. 305, 236 P.3d 24.

Presumption in favor of prospective operation unless clear intent otherwise. — It
is presumed that statutes will operate prospectively only, unless an intention on the part
of the legislature is clearly apparent to give them retrospective effect. State v. Perea,
2001-NMSC-026, 130 N.M. 732, 31 P.3d 1006; State v. Padilla, 1968-NMCA-004, 78
N.M. 702, 437 P.2d 163.

Retroactive operation not mandated by existence of facts prior to enactment. — A
statute does not operate retroactively merely because some of the facts or conditions
upon which its application depends came into existence prior to the enactment. State v.
Mears, 1968-NMCA-098, 79 N.M. 715, 449 P.2d 85.

Clarification of existing law. — A statute which clarifies existing law may properly be
regarded as having prospective effect. Swink v. Fingado, 115 N.M. 275, 850 P.2d 978
(1993).
As a general rule retrospective legislation is not favored. — As a general rule,
retrospective or retroactive legislation is not looked upon with favor. For this reason, it is
a well established and fundamental rule of statutory construction that all statutes are to
be construed as having only a prospective operation. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-203.

Therefore all statutes operate prospectively and not retrospectively. — All statutes
are to be construed as having only a prospective operation and not as operating
retrospectively. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-261.

Clear intent is for retrospective effect. — Statutes are presumed to have only
prospective effect unless there is strong and clear language of an intent for them to
have a retrospective effect. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-192.

Intent controls retroactively but an emergency clause implies prospective effect.
— Generally, statutes will not be given a retroactive interpretation, especially where the
enactment is in derogation of a common-law right or where such interpretation would
interfere with an existing contract or create a new liability in connection with a past
transaction, invalidate a previously valid defense, or where such an interpretation would
render a statute unconstitutional. However, if the intention that a law be retroactive is
manifest, such intention will control even though not expressly stated. On the other
hand, an emergency clause in the enactment is some indication that the law was not
intended to have retroactive effect. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-127.

Statutes of limitation ordinarily will not be given retroactive effect unless it clearly
appears that the legislature so intended. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-203.

New matter in amended statute has no retrospective effect. — A statute amending
a prior one by declaring that it shall be amended so as to read in a given manner has no
retrospective effect. The portion of the amended statute, which is merely copied without
change, is not to be considered as repealed and again enacted, but to have been the
law; and the new parts are not to be taken as to have been the law prior to the passage
of the amended statute. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-20.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Andrew v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D.N.M. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Andrew v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 3× “1978, § 12-2A-8, which was enacted in 1997 and is titled “Prospective Operation,” provides that “[a] statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise,” which mirrors the standard set forth in Landgraf v.”

State v. Ordunez, 2012 NMSC 24 (N.M. 2012). · cites it 2× “2d 978, 986 (1993) (citation omitted); see also NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) (“A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

State v. Morales, 236 P.3d 24 (N.M. 2010). · cites it 2× “3d 1006 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) (“A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

Wood v. State of New Mexico Educ. Ret. Bd., 2011 NMCA 20 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “3d 668 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) (“A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

Wood v. New Mexico Educ. Ret. Bd., 250 P.3d 881 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “3d 668 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) ("A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

GEA Integrated Cooling Tech. v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2012 NMCA 10 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “For the reasons that follow, however, we hold that the application of the new statutory penalty in place at the time of the assessment to tax liabilities that arose for tax periods occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment gives the amendment proper prospective…”

Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy, 2015 NMCA 097 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) (“A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise[,] or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D.N.M. 2011). “1978, § 12-2A-8. A retrospective law affects acts, transactions, or occurrences that happened before the law came into effect and impairs vested rights, requires new obligations, imposes new duties, or affixes new disabilities to past transactions.”

State v. Morales, 196 P.3d 490 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “” NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997). In addition, we observe that “criminal statutes of limitations are to be liberally construed in favor of a defendant because their purpose is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of…”

Garcia v. Martinez (D.N.M. 2020). · cites it 3× “62) at 3 (citing NMSA 1978 § 12-2A-8). Plaintiff analogizes the 2020 Amendments to when the New Mexico Supreme Court abolished the state’s common-law immunity in Hicks v.”

State v. McBride (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “”); see also NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997) (“A statute or rule operates prospectively only unless the statute or rule expressly provides otherwise or its context requires that it operate retrospectively.”

Ulibarri v. Southland Royalty Co., LLC (D.N.M. 2019). · cites it 2× “124 at 22 (citing NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-8 (1997); Sw. Distr. Co.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.