New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6 (2026)

Recompiled.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

History: 1953 Comp., § 77-4A-6, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 308, § 6; 1993, ch. 226, §
17; 1978 Comp., § 22-7-6, recompiled and amended as § 1-25-4 by Laws 2019, ch.
212, § 162.

                                  ANNOTATIONS

Recompilations. — Laws 2019, ch. 212, § 162 recompiled and amended former 22-7-6
NMSA 1978 as 1-25-4 NMSA 1978, effective April 3, 2019.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases, 1955–2017 · leading case: Galassi v. Galassi, 203 P.3d 161 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Galassi v. Galassi, 203 P.3d 161 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “] NMSA 1953, § 22-7-6 (Vol.5, 1943). This provision, for the most part, remained unchanged from 1941 to 1973 when it was amended to divide the material into subsections and to incorporate certain phraseology, punctuation, and style changes.”

Unser v. Unser, 526 P.2d 790 (N.M. 1974). · cites it 5× “” The statute in force when the original decree was entered, § 22-7-6, N.M.S.A. 1953 reads in part: “ * * * the court * * * may modify and change any order in respect to alimony allowed the wife, whenever circumstances render such change proper; * * * and may modify and change…”

Spingola v. Spingola, 580 P.2d 958 (N.M. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Court ruled that § 22-7-6, N.M.S.A.1953 controlled as a matter of public policy over the contrary provisions in the contract.”

Gomez v. Gomez, 587 P.2d 963 (N.M. 1978). · cites it 5× “Section 22-7-6(B)(4), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.”

Doña Ana Cnty. Clerk v. Martinez, 2005 NMSC 037 (N.M. 2005). · cites it 4× “sufficient to allow the recall efforts to proceed; 2) whether the RECALL Petitioners’ motives for initiating the recall election were purely political and personal; 3) whether the district court erred by not considering the Named Board Members’ evidence; 4) whether the county…”

Pruyn v. LAM, 216 P.3d 804 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Husband states two reasons to support his position: (1)historically the district court could modify any order incorporating a marital settlement agreement if the circumstances justified such a change and (2) the language in the current statute does not “suggest a legislative…”

Zarges v. Zarges, 445 P.2d 97 (N.M. 1968). · cites it 4× “Neither can the action of the trial court be supported as an exercise of its continuing jurisdiction under § 22-7-6, supra. This is true notwithstanding its order was entered at the same time it properly considered the question of defendant’s contempt for failure to pay amounts…”

Britton v. Britton, 671 P.2d 1135 (N.M. 1983). · cites it 2× “This Court held that, as with accrued Missouri installments, past due child support payments mandated in a New Mexico divorce decree were deemed not subject to retroactive modification.”

Worland v. Worland, 551 P.2d 981 (N.M. 1976). · cites it 2× “She bases this contention on § 22-7-6, N.M.S.A., 1953 (Supp.1975): “Proceedings—Alimony—Support of children—Division of property,—A.”

Cordova v. Cline, 2017 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2017). “{21} The Recall Act sets forth standards and procedures for petitioning to recall a local school board member, including the form of the petitions, § 22-7-6, canvassers’ affidavits, § 22-7-7, petitioners’ responsibilities for alleging acts of malfeasance or misfeasance, and for…”

Phelps v. Phelps, 509 P.2d 254 (N.M. 1973). · cites it 5× “) The statute which reserves jurisdiction in the district court for enforcement of the 1967 judgment is § 22-7-6, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., which provides in pertinent part: “ * * *.”

Cordova v. Cline, 2013 NMCA 83 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “{12} To begin the recall process, a petitioner collects signatures under the procedures of Section 22-7-6. Pursuant to Article XII, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, a petition for a recall election must cite grounds of malfeasance, misfeasance, or violation of the oath…”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6(A) — 1 case

Schaab v. Schaab, 531 P.2d 954 (N.M. 1974).

— N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6(B)(2) — 2 cases

Galassi v. Galassi, 203 P.3d 161 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “] NMSA 1953, § 22-7-6 (Vol.5, 1943). This provision, for the most part, remained unchanged from 1941 to 1973 when it was amended to divide the material into subsections and to incorporate certain phraseology, punctuation, and style changes.”

Schaab v. Schaab, 531 P.2d 954 (N.M. 1974).

— N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6(B)(4) — 1 case

Gomez v. Gomez, 587 P.2d 963 (N.M. 1978). “Section 22-7-6(B)(4), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.”

— N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6(B)(l) — 2 cases

Pruyn v. LAM, 216 P.3d 804 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “Husband states two reasons to support his position: (1)historically the district court could modify any order incorporating a marital settlement agreement if the circumstances justified such a change and (2) the language in the current statute does not “suggest a legislative…”

— N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6(C) — 3 cases

Doña Ana Cnty. Clerk v. Martinez, 2005 NMSC 037 (N.M. 2005). “sufficient to allow the recall efforts to proceed; 2) whether the RECALL Petitioners’ motives for initiating the recall election were purely political and personal; 3) whether the district court erred by not considering the Named Board Members’ evidence; 4) whether the county…”

Britton v. Britton, 671 P.2d 1135 (N.M. 1983). “This Court held that, as with accrued Missouri installments, past due child support payments mandated in a New Mexico divorce decree were deemed not subject to retroactive modification.”

Gomez v. Gomez, 587 P.2d 963 (N.M. 1978). “Section 22-7-6(B)(4), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.”

— N.M. Stat. § 22-7-6(D)(4) — 1 case

Cordova v. Cline, 2013 NMCA 083 (N.M. 2013).

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.