N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 14 / Article 4
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 14-4-1 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Chapter 14, Article 4 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "State Rules Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 71-7-1, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 275, § 1; 1995, ch. 110, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, substituted "Chapter 14, Article 4, NMSA
1978" for "This act".
This act is inapplicable to interstate agreements. State v. Ellis, 1980-NMCA-187, 95
N.M. 427, 622 P.2d 1047.

Interstate contract is not similar to rules, reports and notices issued by state
agencies. State v. Ellis, 1980-NMCA-187, 95 N.M. 427, 622 P.2d 1047.

State corporation commission (now public regulation commission) may
promulgate regulations interpreting school bus exemption in Motor Carrier Act
without holding hearing prior to the issuance of the regulation, so long as it complies
with State Rules Act, unless and until the legislature were to place the state corporation
commission (now public regulation commission) under the Administrative Procedures
Act, 12-8-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-100.

Law reviews. — For article, "An Administrative Procedure Act for New Mexico," see 8
Nat. Resources J. 114 (1968).

For note, "On Building Better Laws for New Mexico's Environment," see 4 N.M. L. Rev.
105 (1973).

For 1984-88 survey of New Mexico administrative law, 19 N.M.L. Rev. 575 (1990).

For survey of 1988-89 Administrative Law, see 21 N.M.L. Rev. 481 (1991).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and
Procedure §§ 112, 114.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Lujan Grisham v. Romero, 2021 NMSC 009 (N.M. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lujan Grisham v. Romero, 2021 NMSC 009 (N.M. 2021). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Eddy County argues that the Secretary was required to comply with the State Rules Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-4-1 to -11 (1967, as amended through 2017), which directs agencies, including the DOH, to promulgate rules via the rulemaking procedures set forth therein.”
Grisham v. Reeb, 2021 NMSC 006 (N.M. 2020). · cites it 2× “{29} The Real Parties complain that, even if the business restrictions are arguably consistent with the purposes of the PHERA, the emergency orders containing those restrictions were not lawfully issued, as they were not promulgated pursuant to the State Rules Act, NMSA 1978, §§…”
Princeton Place v. N.M. Hum. Servs. Dep't, 2022 NMSC 005 (N.M. 2021). · cites it 2× “HSD now challenges the Court of Appeals reversal of the district court, arguing that (1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the New Mexico Department of Health (DOH) PASARR Level I screening form is unenforceable because it was not promulgated pursuant to the State Rules…”
Johnson v. Francke, 734 P.2d 804 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Petitioners filed their petition pro se in the trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment that rules and regulations governing the conduct and discipline of prisoners were invalid and unenforceable because they had not been filed in accordance with the State Rules Act, NMSA…”
New Energy Econ., Inc. v. Martinez, 2011 NMSC 6 (N.M. 2011). · cites it 2× “100 to the Records Center for filing and publication pursuant to Section 14-4-3 of the State Rules Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-4-1 to - 11 (1967) (as amended through 1995).”
Livingston v. Ewing, 652 P.2d 235 (N.M. 1982). · cites it 2× “1980), that the resolution is a rule within the meaning of the State Rules Act, §§ 14-4-1 through 14hL-9, N.M.S.A. 1978; the court also held that the resolution was invalid and unenforceable because it had never been filed in accordance with that Act.”
Bokum Resources Corp. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Comm'n, 603 P.2d 285 (N.M. 1979). “Although the Court of Appeals makes a distinction between “standards” and “regulations”, the State Rules Act, § 14-4-1, et seq., N.M.S.A. 1978, does not.”
Folz v. State, 857 P.2d 39 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION Appellants argue the trial court erred in denying post-judgment interest on their judgment obtained against the State under the Tort Claims Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 14-4-1 to -27 (Cum.Supp. 1982) (hereinafter the "Tort Claims Act").”
Sedillo v. Nm Dept. of Pub. Saf., 149 P.3d 955 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “1 (1979); (2) the Policy was not required to be filed under the State Rules Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 14-4-1 to -11 (1967, as amended through 1995), which requires State agencies to file and publish rules, regulations, and proclamations; and (3) the POEERA does not create a private…”
State v. Ellis, 622 P.2d 1047 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). “The State Rules Act, § 14-4-1, et seq., N.M.S.A.1978, is inapplicable to interstate agreements.”
State Ex Rel. Garcia v. Martinez, 459 P.2d 458 (N.M. 1969). “The answer to this problem revolves directly around whether the last sentence in § 14-4-1, N.M.S.A.1953, as amended by ch.”
Amigos Bravos v. WQCC (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “In particular, Appellants contend the Commission violated Section 14-4-5(D), which provides, in relevant part: “Within fifteen days after adoption of a rule, an agency shall file the adopted rule with the state records administrator or the administrator’s designee[.”
Show all 14 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.