New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 23-1-8 (2026)

[Grand jury to note statutes prohibiting indebtedness

✓ current as of May 2026

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

exceeding appropriations.]
   It is hereby made the duty of the several district judges to call to the attention of
grand jurors the provisions of the three preceding sections [23-1-5 to 23-1-7 NMSA
1978].

History: Laws 1912, ch. 69, § 4; Code 1915, § 5161; C.S. 1929, § 130-1311; 1941
Comp., § 5-112; 1953 Comp., § 13-3-12.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not
part of the law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases, 1960–2005 · leading case: Peralta v. Martinez, 564 P.2d 194 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peralta v. Martinez, 564 P.2d 194 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 38× “Findings of Fact The trial court found: 1) That Plaintiff's claim as against this Defendant is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, NMSA § 23-1-8 (1953), as a matter of law because: a) There is a factual issue of whether from the time of discovery, on April 17,…”

Howell Ex Rel. Howell v. Burk, 568 P.2d 214 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 10× “" Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, supra.”

Maestas v. Zager, 105 P.3d 317 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 20× “1977), a pre-Medical Malpractice Act case decided under NMSA 1953, § 23-1-8 (1929), recodified without change at NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8 (1976).”

Sandoval v. Valdez, 580 P.2d 131 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 8× “Section 23-1-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Vol. 5). In the instant case, the one year limitation of time provision in the insurance contract is not controlling.”

Romero Ex Rel. Romero v. New Mexico Health & Env't Dep't, 760 P.2d 1282 (N.M. 1988). · cites it 15× “NMSA 1953, Section 23-1-8 was the statute in effect and provided that there was a three-year period in which to bring an action against county or state officers for injuries to a person.”

Chisholm v. Scott, 526 P.2d 1300 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 6× “There are compelling reasons why they should be treated differently: (1) Roybal was a personal injury case, alleging medical malpractice, and controlled by statute of limitations § 23-1-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Vol. 5). In Spurlin v.”

Mantz v. Follingstad, 505 P.2d 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “All discovery had been completed by the time of the pre-trial order.”

Roberts v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 837 P.2d 442 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “We held that the statute of limitations, NMSA 1953, Section 23-1-8, barred the husband’s action for personal injury because “the same should have been filed within three years from the date of the injury.”

Kern Ex Rel. Kern v. St. Joseph Hosp., Inc., 697 P.2d 135 (N.M. 1985). · cites it 2× “Prior to the enactment of the Medical Malpractice Act in 1976, malpractice actions were governed by the general statute of limitations applicable to all personal injury actions, NMSA 1953, Section 23-1-8, which is now NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-8.”

Juarez v. Nelson, 61 P.3d 877 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Hardin was decided under NMSA 1953, § 23-1-8 (1880, as amended through 1909), which provided a three-year statute of limitation for personal injuries.”

Hardin v. Farris, 530 P.2d 407 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 3× “the law is clear that an action for injuries to the person by assault and battery and for negligent medical malpractice must be brought within three years after the accrual of the cause of action.”

Montanez v. Cass, 546 P.2d 1189 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Cass takes the position that plaintiff's claim is barred by that portion of the statute of limitations under § 23-1-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Vol. 5) which reads: .”

Show all 23 citing cases →

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.