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

N.M. Stat. § 21-5-4 (2026)

[Authority to use name "New Mexico school for visually

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
handicapped [New Mexico school for the blind and visually
impaired]."]
    For administrative purposes in all matters except suits, state lands, funds and
appropriations, the "New Mexico institute for the blind" is hereby authorized to use the
name "New Mexico school for the visually handicapped [New Mexico school for the
blind and visually impaired]."

History: Laws 1925, ch. 13, § 1; C.S. 1929, § 130-403; 1941 Comp., § 55-2202; Laws
1953, ch. 62, § 1; 1953 Comp., § 73-23-2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

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

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 14A C.J.S. Colleges and Universities §
9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1967–1981 · leading case: State v. Montoya, 451 P.2d 557 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Montoya, 451 P.2d 557 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 8× “" At this point, the allegations of the motion were put in issue and the evidence thereafter presented was to form the basis for the determination.”
State v. Valdez, 495 P.2d 1079 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 6× “] Where a motion for change of venue is not filed by any party, the trial court does not, under mandatory provisions of a statute, have the inherent power to conduct a hearing and change the venue from one judicial district to another.”
State v. Martinez, 623 P.2d 565 (N.M. 1981). · cites it 4× “) The other statute, Section 21-5-4, places the granting of the venue motion within the discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Lunn, 537 P.2d 672 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “* * *" The motion and affidavit were filed on May 26, 1971. Hearing on the motion was held September 3rd, 1971.”
McCauley v. Ray, 453 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1968). · cites it 2× “, and § 21-5-4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., which are, in pertinent part, as follows: 21-5-3(A).”
State v. Turner, 559 P.2d 1206 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Section 21-5-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970); State v.”
Deats v. State, 451 P.2d 981 (N.M. 1969). · cites it 2× “It is clear that counsel for petitioner considered that § 21-5-4, supra, was applicable because at the close of his presentation he asked for and was granted permission to submit requested findings of fact.”
State v. Shawan, 423 P.2d 39 (N.M. 1967). · cites it 2× “Section 21-5-4, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., requires the court to make findings of fact if there has been a hearing on the motion.”
State v. Lindsey, 464 P.2d 903 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). “As held in these cases, if a motion for change of venue in proper form and properly supported is timely filed, as required by § 21—5-3, supra, the trial judge must either grant the motion or conduct a hearing thereon as provided in § 21-5-4, N.M.S.A. 1953. See also, Deats v.”
State v. McCuistion, 537 P.2d 702 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “Under § 21-5-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4), upon hearing on the motion, the trial court “shall make findings and either grant or overrule said motion.”
State v. Childers, 431 P.2d 497 (N.M. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “No hearing was had on the motion which stated that the defendant believed that he could not obtain a fair trial in Eddy County and that an impartial jury could not there be obtained.”
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.