N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 21 / Article 5
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 21-5-1 (2026)

Purpose of school for the blind [New Mexico school for the

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
blind and visually impaired]; power to acquire land.
   The New Mexico school for the blind [New Mexico school for the blind and visually
impaired] is intended and meant for the proper formal education of the blind of the state,
and for the furtherance of such purpose to acquire land by purchase, gift or otherwise.

History: Laws 1903, ch. 2, § 8; 1907, ch. 4, § 1; Code 1915, § 5105; C.S. 1929, § 130-
407; 1941 Comp., § 55-2201; Laws 1947, ch. 183, § 1; 1953 Comp., § 73-23-1; Laws
1971, ch. 324, § 6.
                                      ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not
part of the law.

Laws 1903, ch. 2, § 3 established the New Mexico institute for the blind. Laws 1947, ch.
183, § 1, amended this section so that it referred to the New Mexico school for the blind.

The repeal and reenactment on November 8, 1960, of N.M. Const., art. XII, § 11,
changed the name of the New Mexico institute for the blind to the New Mexico school
for the visually handicapped.

An amendment to N.M. Const., art. XII, § 11, adopted at a general election held
November 2, 2004, changed the name of the New Mexico school for the visually
handicapped to the New Mexico school for the blind and visually impaired.

Cross references. — For the White Cane Law, see 28-7-1 to 28-7-7 NMSA 1978.

Scope of discretion to refuse admission. — As the institute for the blind (school for
the visually handicapped) is for the blind youth of the state, it is not within the discretion
of the superintendent, either with or without the approval of the board of trustees, to
refuse admission to a blind applicant. 1925 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 25-3868.

As to granting of tenure. — Teaching personnel of the New Mexico school for the
visually handicapped were not accorded statutory tenure rights unless they met the
qualifications of 73-12-15.1, 1953 Comp. (repealed) or unless these privileges were
extended by policy of board of regents of the institution or afforded under a written
contract. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-89.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — When does change in "educational
placement" occur for purposes of § 615(b)(1)(C) of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975 (20 USCS § 1415(b)(1)(C)), requiring notice to parents prior to
such change, 54 A.L.R. Fed. 570.

78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 4 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1955–1980 · leading case: Kalosha v. Novick, 505 P.2d 845 (N.M. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kalosha v. Novick, 505 P.2d 845 (N.M. 1973). · cites it 8× “Also argued to the court below was a claim that since an interest in lands was the object of the suit, venue was improper because none of the lands were situate in Santa Fe County.”
Hughes v. Joe G. Maloof & Co., 505 P.2d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 19× “Section 21-5-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4); see Torres v.”
Tudesque v. New Mexico State Bd. of Barber Examiners, 331 P.2d 1104 (N.M. 1958). · cites it 6× “Be that as it may, the legislature has expressly localized suits against state officers by virtue of Section 21-5-1, subd. G, NMSA 1953. See Combs v.”
New Mexico Livestock Bd. v. Dose, 607 P.2d 606 (N.M. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d 584 (1968), this Court held that Section 21-5-1(G), N.M.S.A.1953 (now Section 38-3-1(G)) clearly and unequivocally “is jurisdictional on its face.”
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Quesenberry, 383 P.2d 255 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 3× “Appellant’s answer to the alternative writ of mandamus, by failure to deny, admitted the condemnation judgment and alleged as legal defenses: (1) that mandamus is not expressly authorized by the eminent domain statute as a means of enforcing a condemnation judgment against a…”
Lacy v. Silva, 499 P.2d 361 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “Section 21-5-1 (G), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol.”
Lucus v. Ruckman, 287 P.2d 68 (N.M. 1955). · cites it 2× “§ 21-5-1 (4a); also Heath v. Gray, 58 N.M.”
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Quesenberry, 390 P.2d 273 (N.M. 1964). · cites it 3× “Section 21-5-1, N.M.S.A.1953, cannot be considered as a means of ousting a court of jurisdiction, once that jurisdiction has attached; and this is particularly true where the state commission originally sought the aid of the court in another county by seeking relief, such as…”
Valdez v. Ballenger, 581 P.2d 1280 (N.M. 1978). · cites it 2× “Lance and Barela both resided in Bernalillo County and their estates are being probated in Bernalillo County.”
Johnson v. Nelson, 275 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1979). “§ 11-11-3 (1972); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 21-5-1 (1953).”
Buhler v. Marrujo, 524 P.2d 1015 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974). “The venue was laid in San Miguel County because of § 21-5-1 (D)(1), N.M. S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol.”
State Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. Reese, 430 P.2d 399 (N.M. 1967). “It is sufficient to point out that by virtue of § 21-5-1, N.M.S.A.1953, venue of actions against state officers is laid “in the court of the county wherein their offices are located, at the capital and not elsewhere.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— N.M. Stat. § 21-5-1(4a) — 1 case
Lucus v. Ruckman, 287 P.2d 68 (N.M. 1955). “§ 21-5-1 (4a); also Heath v. Gray, 58 N.M.”
— N.M. Stat. § 21-5-1(7) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Quesenberry, 390 P.2d 273 (N.M. 1964). “Section 21-5-1, N.M.S.A.1953, cannot be considered as a means of ousting a court of jurisdiction, once that jurisdiction has attached; and this is particularly true where the state commission originally sought the aid of the court in another county by seeking relief, such as…”
— N.M. Stat. § 21-5-1(A) — 1 case
Hughes v. Joe G. Maloof & Co., 505 P.2d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973). “Section 21-5-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4); see Torres v.”
— N.M. Stat. § 21-5-1(D)(1) — 1 case
Buhler v. Marrujo, 524 P.2d 1015 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974).
— N.M. Stat. § 21-5-1(G) — 2 cases
New Mexico Livestock Bd. v. Dose, 607 P.2d 606 (N.M. 1980). “2d 584 (1968), this Court held that Section 21-5-1(G), N.M.S.A.1953 (now Section 38-3-1(G)) clearly and unequivocally “is jurisdictional on its face.”
Hughes v. Joe G. Maloof & Co., 505 P.2d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973). “Section 21-5-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4); see Torres v.”
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.