New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 22-12-5 (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Repealed.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., § 77-10-4, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 172; 1979, ch. 55, §
1; 1990 (1st S.S.), ch. 9, § 11; repealed by Laws 2019, ch. 223, § 17.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 2019, ch. 223, § 17 repealed Section 22-12-5 NMSA 1978, as
enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 172, relating to school attendance, effective June 14,
2019. For provisions of former section, see the 2018 NMSA 1978 on
NMOneSource.com.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1955–1974 · leading case: Montoya v. Blackhurst, 500 P.2d 176 (N.M. 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Montoya v. Blackhurst, 500 P.2d 176 (N.M. 1972). · cites it 2× “Appellants next contend that appellee had an adequate remedy at law and, therefore, mandamus did not lie in the instant case.”

State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. Clark, 439 P.2d 547 (N.M. 1968). · cites it 2× “Did the property owner have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at lavo? Section 22-12-5, N.M.S.A. 1953, states that the writ shall not issue where there is a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

Alfred v. Anderson, 522 P.2d 79 (N.M. 1974). · cites it 2× “Section 22-12-5 expressly provides: “The writ shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

Birdo v. Rodriguez, 501 P.2d 195 (N.M. 1972). “§ 22-12-5, N.M.S.A.1953. Turning to a consideration of the petitioner’s first argument — that the trial court lacked power or jurisdiction to dismiss sua sponte — we are of the opinion that the trial court had that power.”

Sender v. Montoya, 387 P.2d 860 (N.M. 1963). “It may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; but though it may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed…”

City of Santa Rosa v. Jaramillo, 517 P.2d 69 (N.M. 1973). “When a municipality is not given a right to appeal and thus has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law to enforce its rights to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of its residents, these rights may be enforced by mandamus.”

Andrews v. Walker, 287 P.2d 423 (N.M. 1955). “§ 22-12-5 of 1953 Compilation. § 7-8-71 of 1953 Compilation, provides: "Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commissioner may appeal to the district court of any county wherein any portion of the land as to which any such right, title or interest is in controversy, is…”

State Bd. of Parole v. Lane, 314 P.2d 602 (N.M. 1957). “The Board then sued out a writ of error here seeking a reversal of the action of the court below. The first point made by the board is that mandamus will not lie when there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.”

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.