New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-8-8 (2026)

Abatement of a public nuisance.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Except as herein provided, an action for the abatement of a public nuisance shall
be governed by the general rules of civil procedure.

   B. A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint in
the name of the state without cost, by any public officer or private citizen, in the district
court of the county where the public nuisance exists, against any person, corporation or
association of persons who shall create, perform or maintain a public nuisance.

    C. When judgment is against the defendant in an action to abate a public nuisance,
he shall be adjudged to pay all court costs and a reasonable fee for the complainant's
attorney, when the suit is not prosecuted exclusively by the attorney general or a district
attorney.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-8-5, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 8-5.
                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For control of contagious diseases and dangerous conditions by
health authorities, see 24-1-15 to 24-1-19, 24-1-21 NMSA 1978.

For admissibility of evidence in proceedings hereunder, see 30-9-7 NMSA 1978.

For procedure in seeking injunction, see Rules 1-065 and 1-066 NMRA.

Injunction authorized. — Injunctive relief could be employed to protect the public
health, morals, safety and welfare from irreparable injury by a public nuisance. State ex
rel. Marron v. Compere, 1940-NMSC-041, 44 N.M. 414, 103 P.2d 273.

Crime not enjoinable as such. — Where a ground of equitable jurisdiction to enjoin
otherwise exists, the claim to such relief is not to be denied merely because the act
complained of constitutes a crime, but a crime may not in and of itself be made an
independent ground for injunction; hence, trial court could not extend authority of its
restraint against defendant from maintaining a certain premises for purposes of
lewdness, assignation or prostitution throughout entire county, and its attempt to do so
fell squarely within the interdiction that equity may not be employed to forestall the
commission of a crime. State v. Robertson, 1957-NMSC-060, 63 N.M. 74, 313 P.2d
342.

Motion picture. — Injunction of motion picture as nuisance because of "lewdness"
would be in the nature of censorship and prior restraint. State ex rel. Murphy v. Morley,
1957-NMSC-087, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317.

Bond as enforcement device. — A trial judge has both the statute and the discretion
inherent in his broad equitable powers to draw upon in providing means for the
enforcement of order restraining defendant from using, occupying or maintaining a
certain premises for purposes of lewdness, assignation or prostitution, by requiring a
bond of defendant, so long as its effect is confined to the premises in question. State v.
Robertson, 1957-NMSC-060, 63 N.M. 74, 313 P.2d 342.

Civil action. — Action brought under general equity powers for protection of public
morals is a civil action. State ex rel. Murphy v. Morley, 1957-NMSC-087, 63 N.M. 267,
317 P.2d 317.

Standing to sue for pollution abatement. — Action brought by attorney general and
certain private citizens for injunction to abate alleged public nuisance caused by
emissions from coal-burning power plant should have been dismissed in trial court since
environmental improvement agency (now environment department) had primary
jurisdiction over pollution control and means were available to compel agency to
perform its duties, should it fail to do so. State ex rel. Norvell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co.,
1973-NMSC-051, 85 N.M. 165, 510 P.2d 98.
Sufficiency of complaint. — Where the nuisance complained of is a nuisance per se,
and denounced as such in the statute, it is sufficient for the complaint to allege its
existence in the language of the statute. State v. Robertson, 1957-NMSC-060, 63 N.M.
74, 313 P.2d 342.

Injunction power of court. — Injunction under general equity powers of court to
protect public morals could not be had where complaint was brought under statute
providing for injunction and abatement of nuisance and forfeiture of premises on proof
that "lewdness, assignation or prostitution" existed there. State ex rel. Murphy v. Morley,
1957-NMSC-087, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317.

Recovery of pecuniary damages is not provided by this section. Thus, a private
plaintiff's attempt to recover pecuniary damages for the pollution of his groundwater
must fail. Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 857 F. Supp. 838
(D.N.M. 1994).

Statute provides alternative means for abating noxious odors. — Where air quality
standards or regulations have not been established as to what constitutes "air pollution"
and thus no violation of the Air Quality Control Act (Sections 74-2-1 to 74-2-17 NMSA
1978) or regulations and standards is apparent, the public nuisance law may provide an
alternative means for the environmental improvement division (now environment
department) to abate noxious odors. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-12.

Law reviews. — For comment, "Control of Industrial Water Pollution in New Mexico,"
see 9 Nat. Resources J. 653 (1969).

For note, "Gabaldon v. Sanchez: New Developments in the Law of Nuisance,
Negligence and Trespass," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 367 (1979).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §§ 229 to
267.

Carwash as nuisance, 4 A.L.R.4th 1308.

When statute of limitations begins to run as to cause of action for nuisance based on air
pollution, 19 A.L.R.4th 456.

Validity and application of statute authorizing forfeiture of use or closure of real property
from which obscene materials have been disseminated or exhibited, 25 A.L.R.4th 395.

Business interruption, without physical damage, as actionable, 65 A.L.R.4th 1126.

What constitutes special injury that entitles private party to maintain action based on
public nuisance - modern cases, 71 A.L.R.4th 13.
Nuisance as entitling owner or occupant of real estate to recover damages for personal
inconvenience, discomfort, annoyance, anguish, or sickness, distinct from, or in addition
to, damages for depreciation in value of property or its use, 25 A.L.R.5th 568.

66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 102 to 110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 2011 NMCA 38 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011).
Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 2011 NMCA 38 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “Titus claims that NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-8(B) (1963) precludes Albuquerque from enforcing STOP and abating a nuisance through a process that involves an administrative hearing before a city- appointed hearing officer.”
New Mexico v. Gen. Elec. Co., 335 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D.N.M. 2004). · cites it 18× “1994) (polluting public water a public nuisance), 122 a section currently found in New Mexico’s criminal code 123 together with its corresponding remedial provision, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-8-8 (Repl.1994) (abatement of a public nuisance).”
City of Albuquerque v. State Ex Rel. Vill. of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque, 808 P.2d 58 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The individual petitioners initiated suit, both in their individual capacities and as private attorneys general acting in the name of the State of New Mexico, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-8 (Repl.Pamp. 1984). Petitioners’ complaint also alleged that the City was in the…”
State ex rel. Vill. of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 889 P.2d 185 (N.M. 1994). · cites it 2× “The Village alleges the Montano project will be a public nuisance and argues that it should be abated under NMSA 1978, § 30-8-8(B) (Repl.Pamp.1994): A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint in the name of the state without cost, by any…”
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “According to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Complaint) McKesson Corporation and other Distributor Defendants 1 habitually failed to monitor, report, investigate, and refuse suspicious orders 2 for prescription opioids originating from New Mexico in violation of the New…”
Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 857 F. Supp. 838 (D.N.M. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 30-8-8 (emphasis added), and provides, “A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint in the name of the state .”
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 603 P.2d 303 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “Finally, plaintiff contends that the lack of police protection for Roosevelt Park was a condition constituting a public nuisance, and that she has standing to abate such a nuisance under § 30-8-8(B), N.M.S.A.1978, which - states: A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be…”
Doe v. Santa Fe Pub. Schs. (D.N.M. 2024). · cites it 11× “(Count XIII); and (4) Public Nuisance under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-8-8 (Count XIV). See generally doc.”
Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 252 P.3d 780 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Titus claims that NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-8(B) (1963) precludes Albuquerque from enforcing STOP and abating a nuisance through a process that involves an administrative hearing before a city-appointed hearing officer.”
State v. City of Rio Rancho (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 7× “In 2019, Plaintiffs 10 filed a second amended complaint, which added a statutory public nuisance claim 11 against HGT brought under NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-8 (1963), and requested a 12 temporary and permanent injunction “preventing HGT from continuing to operate 13 the landfill…”
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 603 P.2d 303 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “Finally, plaintiff contends that the lack of police protection for Roosevelt Park was a condition constituting a public nuisance, and that she has standing to abate such a nuisance under § 30-8-8(B), N.M.S.A. 1978, which states: A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be…”
Montoya v. Albuquerque (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “We addressed whether 4 the former of these two provisions, Section 30-8-8(B), conflicted with STOP in Titus.”
— N.M. Stat. § 30-8-8(B) — 9 cases
Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 2011 NMCA 38 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Titus claims that NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-8(B) (1963) precludes Albuquerque from enforcing STOP and abating a nuisance through a process that involves an administrative hearing before a city- appointed hearing officer.”
State ex rel. Vill. of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 889 P.2d 185 (N.M. 1994). “The Village alleges the Montano project will be a public nuisance and argues that it should be abated under NMSA 1978, § 30-8-8(B) (Repl.Pamp.1994): A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint in the name of the state without cost, by any…”
Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 857 F. Supp. 838 (D.N.M. 1994). “§ 30-8-8 (emphasis added), and provides, “A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be brought, by verified complaint in the name of the state .”
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 603 P.2d 303 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “Finally, plaintiff contends that the lack of police protection for Roosevelt Park was a condition constituting a public nuisance, and that she has standing to abate such a nuisance under § 30-8-8(B), N.M.S.A.1978, which - states: A civil action to abate a public nuisance may be…”
Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 252 P.3d 780 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Titus claims that NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-8(B) (1963) precludes Albuquerque from enforcing STOP and abating a nuisance through a process that involves an administrative hearing before a city-appointed hearing officer.”
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.