N.M. Stat. » Chapter 22 — Public Schools
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 22-12-1 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

History: 1953 Comp., § 77-10-1, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 169; 2003, ch. 153, § 55; repealed by Laws 2019, ch. 223, § 17.

ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 2019, ch. 223, § 17 repealed 22-12-1 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 169, relating to short title, effective June 14, 2019. For provisions of former section, see the 2018 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1965–2018 · leading case: Alverson v. Harris, 1997-NMCA-024, 935 P.2d 1165.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alverson v. Harris, 1997-NMCA-024, 935 P.2d 1165. “1993) (child labor); §§ 22-12-1 to -8 (Repl.Pamp.1993) (compulsory school attendance); § 21-21A-2 (Repl.”
State v. Edgington, 663 P.2d 374 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “), to-wit: “exclusive of home instruction offered by the parent, guardian or one having custody of the student”, as this definition pertains to the Compulsory School Attendance Law (§§ 22-12-1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1978 Comp.), the provisions of which the Defendants are charged…”
Alfred v. Anderson, 522 P.2d 79 (N.M. 1974). “Sections 22-12-1 through 14, N.M.S.A. 1953 relate to mandamus proceedings.”
State v. Roeper, 433 P.3d 311 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “We conclude that the Compulsory School Attendance Law (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 22-12-1 to -10 (1967, as amended through 2017) requires that the juvenile probation office conduct an investigation into whether Defendant's child was "a neglected child or a child in a family in need…”
State v. Roeper, 2019-NMCA-001. · cites it 2× “We conclude that the Compulsory School Attendance Law (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 22-12-1 to -10 (1967, as amended through 2017) requires that the juvenile probation office conduct an investigation into whether Defendant’s child was “a neglected child or a child in a family 1 in…”
State ex rel. City of Las Cruces v. McManus, 404 P.2d 106 (N.M. 1965). “Although no different rule of decision results, it is observed that this is an original proceeding for mandamus under § 22-12-1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1953, and that somewhat different procedural rules apply than in cases of appeals.”
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.