New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 22-12-4 (2026)

Repealed.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

History: 1953 Comp., § 77-10-3, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 171; reenacted by
Laws 1978, ch. 211, § 10; repealed by Laws 2019, ch. 223, § 17.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 2019, ch. 223, § 17 repealed Section 22-12-4 NMSA 1978, as
enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 211, § 10, relating to right to education, effective June 14,
2019. For provisions of former section, see the 2018 NMSA 1978 on
NMOneSource.com.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1961–2007 · leading case: Sender v. Montoya, 387 P.2d 860 (N.M. 1963).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sender v. Montoya, 387 P.2d 860 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 6× “1953) here material are: Section 22-12-4, which provides: "22-12-4.”

Ellenberg Ex Rel. S.E. v. New Mexico Military Inst., 478 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2007). “N.M. Stat. § 22-12-4. Students may also attend other public schools within the state subject to availability, as determined by “enrollment preferences.”

Montoya v. Blackhurst, 500 P.2d 176 (N.M. 1972). · cites it 2× “Second, appellants contend that the mandamus should not have been issued, because appellee had an adequate remedy at law. Finally, appellants argue that the trial court improperly joined the mandamus action with a complaint for declaratory relief.”

State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Clark, 439 P.2d 547 (N.M. 1968). · cites it 2× “The State Highway Commission refused to sell to the property owner on the basis of the highest and best bid obtained.”

Witt v. Hartman, 477 P.2d 608 (N.M. 1970). · cites it 2× “” Section 22-12-4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. Here, no statutory or legal duty is shown to have been cast upon the respondent by subsection E, supra, standing alone.”

Sanchez v. Bd. of Educ. of Town of Belen, 362 P.2d 979 (N.M. 1961). “With respect to the remedy of mandamus, §§ 22-12-4 and 22-12-5, N.M.S.A.1953, provide : “22-12-4.”

State Ex Rel. Peters v. McIntosh, 458 P.2d 222 (N.M. 1969). “Mandamus is not available to control judicial discretion, § 22-12-4, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion, State ex rel.”

Apodaca v. Rodriguez, 503 P.2d 318 (N.M. 1972). “Thus the actual release date may, and does, fluctuate under all or any of these statutes as applied to particular fact situations, and how the date is to be specified far in advance, is a matter upon which Apodaca sheds no light here.”

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.