New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 22-7-9.1 (2026)
Recompiled.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
History: 1978, Comp., § 22-7-9.1, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 142, § 2; recompiled and amended as § 1-25-6 by Laws 2019, ch. 212, § 164. ANNOTATIONS Recompilations. — Laws 2019, ch. 212, § 164 recompiled and amended former 22-7- 9.1 NMSA 1978 as 1-25-6 NMSA 1978, effective April 3, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Cordova v. Cline, 2017 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2017).
Cordova v. Cline, 2017 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2017). “Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judge’s “review of the completed face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination whether sufficient facts…”
Doña Ana Cnty. Clerk v. Martinez, 2005 NMSC 037 (N.M. 2005). “In the first order, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 22-7-9.1 (1987), the district court found that sufficient facts existed to allow the recall process to continue, on the basis of Open Meetings Act violations and violations of House Bill 212, although the court required modifications…”
Caps v. Bd. Members, 832 P.2d 790 (N.M. 1992). “Upon receipt of the petitions, in compliance with Section 22-7-9.1(A) of the Act, the county clerk filed an application for hearing in the district court requesting the court’s determination of whether sufficient facts existed to allow CAPS to continue with the recall process.”
Cordova v. Cline, 2013 NMCA 083 (N.M. 2013). “See § 22-7-9.1(A). Under the Act, the hearing should have taken place within ten days.”
Cordova v. Cline (N.M. 2017). “17 Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judges’ “review of the completed 18 face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific 14 1 facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination 2 whether…”
Chandler v. Advance N.M. Now PAC, 2021 NMCA 017 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). “In accordance with the Recall Act, the association collected signatures and submitted a petition to the Taos County Clerk, who then filed an application with the district court requesting a sufficiency hearing as required by Section 22-7-9.1(A) (providing that “the county clerk…”
N.M. Stat. § 22-7-9.1(0): 1 case
Doña Ana Cnty. Clerk v. Martinez, 2005 NMSC 037 (N.M. 2005). “In the first order, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 22-7-9.1 (1987), the district court found that sufficient facts existed to allow the recall process to continue, on the basis of Open Meetings Act violations and violations of House Bill 212, although the court required modifications…”
N.M. Stat. § 22-7-9.1(A): 5 cases
Cordova v. Cline, 2017 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2017). “Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judge’s “review of the completed face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination whether sufficient facts…”
Caps v. Bd. Members, 832 P.2d 790 (N.M. 1992). “Upon receipt of the petitions, in compliance with Section 22-7-9.1(A) of the Act, the county clerk filed an application for hearing in the district court requesting the court’s determination of whether sufficient facts existed to allow CAPS to continue with the recall process.”
Chandler v. Advance N.M. Now PAC, 2021 NMCA 017 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). “In accordance with the Recall Act, the association collected signatures and submitted a petition to the Taos County Clerk, who then filed an application with the district court requesting a sufficiency hearing as required by Section 22-7-9.1(A) (providing that “the county clerk…”
Cordova v. Cline, 2013 NMCA 083 (N.M. 2013). “See § 22-7-9.1(A). Under the Act, the hearing should have taken place within ten days.”
Cordova v. Cline (N.M. 2017). “17 Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judges’ “review of the completed 18 face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific 14 1 facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination 2 whether…”
N.M. Stat. § 22-7-9.1(B): 3 cases
Cordova v. Cline, 2017 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2017). “Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judge’s “review of the completed face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination whether sufficient facts…”
Cordova v. Cline, 2013 NMCA 083 (N.M. 2013). “See § 22-7-9.1(A). Under the Act, the hearing should have taken place within ten days.”
Cordova v. Cline (N.M. 2017). “17 Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judges’ “review of the completed 18 face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific 14 1 facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination 2 whether…”
N.M. Stat. § 22-7-9.1(C): 3 cases
Cordova v. Cline, 2017 NMSC 20 (N.M. 2017). “Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judge’s “review of the completed face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination whether sufficient facts…”
Cordova v. Cline, 2013 NMCA 083 (N.M. 2013). “See § 22-7-9.1(A). Under the Act, the hearing should have taken place within ten days.”
Cordova v. Cline (N.M. 2017). “17 Section 22-7-9.1. The public hearing is limited to a judges’ “review of the completed 18 face sheet together with affidavits submitted by the petitioner setting forth specific 14 1 facts in support of the charges specified on the face sheet” and a “determination 2 whether…”
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.