New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 39-2-6 (2026)

[When judgment appealed from was for appellant.]

✓ current as of May 2026

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

If such appeal be from a judgment in favor of the appellant, costs shall be adjudged
as follows: if upon the trial anew, the appellant shall not recover more than the judgment
below, he shall pay the costs of the appellate court; if he recover nothing, the costs shall
be adjudged against him in both courts; if he recover more than the judgment below, he
shall recover costs in both courts.

History: Kearny Code, Costs, § 4; C.L. 1865, ch. 45, § 4; C.L. 1884, § 2205; C.L. 1897,
§ 3151; Code 1915, § 4285; C.S. 1929, § 105-1304; 1941 Comp., § 29-105; 1953
Comp., § 25-1-5.

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

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 909
et seq.

Right to have enforcement of judgment for costs stayed pending final determination of
case, 78 A.L.R. 359.

Appellate court's award of costs as affected by subsequent proceedings or course of
action in the lower court, 116 A.L.R. 1152.

20 C.J.S. Costs § 157 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1966–1976 · leading case: Tafoya v. New Mexico State Police Bd., 472 P.2d 973 (N.M. 1970).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tafoya v. New Mexico State Police Bd., 472 P.2d 973 (N.M. 1970). · cites it 7× “If the appellant be correct that § 39-2-6 (A) (5), supra, applies only to prospective members, the net effect of his argument is that the legislature engaged in the useless task of covering the same subject matter twice.”

Foley v. Connelie, 419 F. Supp. 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). · cites it 2× “1975); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 39-2-6 (1972); N.D. Cent.”

Winston v. New Mexico State Police Bd., 454 P.2d 967 (N.M. 1969). “Indeed, other provisions of the article make it apparent to us that such service is intended by the legislature to be without limitation of time except for a maximum age limit (§ 39-2-6 (B), N.M.S.A. 1953, Supp. Í967).”

State v. Chavez, 421 P.2d 796 (N.M. 1966). “The motion to suppress the evidence presents only the question of whether the affidavit ■must, by express language, so state, as a ■condition precedent to the issuance of a valid search warrant. We hold that the statute does not require a recital in the .”

— N.M. Stat. § 39-2-6(A) — 1 case

Tafoya v. New Mexico State Police Bd., 472 P.2d 973 (N.M. 1970). “If the appellant be correct that § 39-2-6 (A) (5), supra, applies only to prospective members, the net effect of his argument is that the legislature engaged in the useless task of covering the same subject matter twice.”

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.