N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 34 / Article 8A
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 34-8A-7 (2026)

Metropolitan court; administration.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. The metropolitan judges of a metropolitan court shall select and appoint a court
administrator who shall supervise all matters relating to the administration of the
metropolitan court. The court administrator shall, after his appointment, be directly
responsible to and work at the direction of the presiding judge of the metropolitan court.

   B. The metropolitan court administrator shall annually prepare and submit a
proposed budget approved by the presiding judge of the metropolitan court to the
administrative office of the courts. The metropolitan court shall make monthly written
reports to the administrative office of the courts as is currently required of all
magistrates and shall otherwise comply with the rules and statutes regarding
administration except as provided by this act.

   C. All money for the operation and maintenance of the metropolitan court shall be
paid by the state treasurer upon warrants of the secretary of finance and administration,
supported by vouchers of the presiding judge of the metropolitan court and in
accordance with budgets approved by the administrative office of the courts and the
state budget division of the department of finance and administration.

History: Laws 1979, ch. 346, § 7; 1980, ch. 142, § 5.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — The term "this act," referred to at the end of Subsection B, means
Laws 1980, ch. 142, which is compiled as 34-8A-2 to 34-8A-4 and 34-8A-6 to 34-8A-8
NMSA 1978.

Supreme court control over metropolitan courts. — The supreme court has ultimate
authority over administrative matters of the courts. Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d
1167 (10th Cir. 1991).

The supreme court's power of superintending control includes the authority to order the
metropolitan court to terminate its court administrator. Russillo v. Scarborough, 935
F.2d 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).

Metropolitan court administrator was an "at-will" employee who could have been
terminated with or without cause, and was not entitled to any grievance procedures or to
notice or hearing at termination. Russillo v. Scarborough, 727 F. Supp. 1402 (D.N.M.
1989), aff'd, 935 F.2d 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1989–1989 · leading case: Russillo v. Scarborough, 727 F. Supp. 1402 (D.N.M. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Russillo v. Scarborough, 727 F. Supp. 1402 (D.N.M. 1989). · cites it 2× “Rule 32(C) of the NMJBPR provides that the responsibility for initiating and administering any disciplinary action against a confidential employee “is vested in the justice or judge to whom the employee is responsible.” By statute, the Metropolitan Court Administrator is…”
N.M. Stat. § 34-8A-7(A): 1 case
Russillo v. Scarborough, 727 F. Supp. 1402 (D.N.M. 1989). “Rule 32(C) of the NMJBPR provides that the responsibility for initiating and administering any disciplinary action against a confidential employee “is vested in the justice or judge to whom the employee is responsible.” By statute, the Metropolitan Court Administrator is…”
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.