N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 22 / Article 20
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 22-20-2 (2026)

School building construction; distance from highways.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. No local school board or governing body of a charter school shall construct or
cause the construction of any public school building within four hundred feet of any main
artery of travel without the prior written approval of the department.

    B. The district court may enforce the provisions of this section by any appropriate
civil remedy in an action brought by an interested party.

   C. As used in this section, "main artery of travel" means any designated state or
federal-aid highway used primarily to accommodate transient motor traffic through a
municipality and any type of public highway used primarily to accommodate transient
motor traffic through a rural community or area.
History: 1953 Comp., § 77-18-2, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 271; 2006, ch. 94, §
55.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For transfer of powers and duties of former state board of
education, see 9-24-15 NMSA 1978.

The 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2007, added the governing body of a charter
school and changes "state board" to "department" in Subsection A.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1956–2016 · leading case: Stang v. Hertz Corp., 463 P.2d 45 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stang v. Hertz Corp., 463 P.2d 45 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 21× “202, § 1) to § 22-20-2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1969) our statute may no longer be characterized as a survival statute.”
Howell Ex Rel. Howell v. Burk, 568 P.2d 214 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “" Section 22-20-2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Vol. 5, 1975 Supp.”
Perry v. Staver, 473 P.2d 380 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 9× “” The applicable limitations statute is § 22-20-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969), which provides: “Limitation of actions.”
Est. of Brice Ex Rel. Tracy A. v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2016 NMSC 018 (N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “30, § 1;NMSA 1953, § 22-20-2. In Kilkenny v. Kenney, we again held that the new three-year limitations provision ran from the date of injury, rather than the date of death.”
Stang v. Hertz Corp., 467 P.2d 14 (N.M. 1970). · cites it 4× “) It is to be noted that § 22-20-2, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., 1969 Pocket Supp.”
Andrew v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D.N.M. 2011). “30, § 1, being § 22-20-2, N.M.S.A. 1953, effective June 12,1953, controls in the case of death occurring in 1952 instead of the one-year period theretofore allowed, N.”
Ortega v. Shube, 603 P.2d 323 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “1978 (formerly § 22-20-2, N.M.S.A. 1953). Since there was no saving clause in the Wrongful Death Act which would allow the statute of limitations to be extended, § 37-1-14 could not be used in wrongful death actions.”
Lopez v. Maes, 472 P.2d 658 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “1953, and §§ 22-20-2 and 4, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1969).”
Wall v. Gillett, 298 P.2d 939 (N.M. 1956). “30, § 1, being § 22-20-2, N.M.S.A.1953, effective June 12, 1953, controls in the case of death occurring in 1952 instead of the one-year period theretofore allowed, N.”
Rogers v. Thomas, 472 P.2d 986 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). “1953, and §§ 22-20-2 and 4, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969)], for the alleged wrongful death of decedent, Clarence L.”
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.