N.M. Stat. § 39-7-3 (2026)

The supreme court or the court of appeals of this state, on the motion of a party to
pending litigation or its own motion, may certify a question of law to the highest court of
another state, a tribe, Canada, a Canadian province or territory, Mexico or a Mexican
state if:

    A. the pending litigation involves a question to be decided under the law of the other
jurisdiction;

     B. the answer to the question may be determinative of an issue in the pending
litigation; and

   C. the question is one for which an answer is not provided by a controlling appellate
decision, constitutional provision or statute of the other jurisdiction.

History: Laws 1997, ch. 8, § 3.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Considerations in granting certification. — The degree of uncertainty in the law and
prospects for judicial economy in the termination of litigation are considered in deciding
whether to accept pretrial certification from federal court. These considerations,
however, are appropriately weighed against the advantages of normal appellate review
in determining whether to accept certification. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108
N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709.

Avoidance of advisory opinions. — The intent of the certification of facts and
determinative answer requirements is that the supreme court avoid rendering advisory
opinions. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709.

Requirements for certification. — It is sufficient if the certification of facts and the
record contain the necessary factual predicates to the supreme court's resolution of the
question certified, and it is clear that evidence admissible at trial may be resolved in a
manner requiring application of the law in question. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-
037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709.

Certification is a discretionary function of the federal court, to be utilized, when
available, to determine unsettled questions of state law. Ormsbee Dev. Co. v. Grace,
668 F.2d 1140 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838, 103 S. Ct. 84, 74 L. Ed. 2d 79
(1982).

Court's answer must be determinative. — The supreme court's answer must be
determinative in that it resolves the issue in the case out of which the question arose,
and the resolution of this issue materially advances the ultimate termination of the
litigation. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709.

Certification inappropriate where issue certified not determinative. — Certification
to the supreme court of New Mexico is not appropriate when the issue certified would
not be determinative of the issues before a federal court. Ormsbee Dev. Co. v. Grace,
668 F.2d 1140 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838, 103 S. Ct. 84, 74 L. Ed. 2d 79
(1982).

Certification was declined, where certified questions regarding the constitutionality of
the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act, 41-5-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., were not
accompanied by sufficient nonhypothetical evidentiary facts to allow the supreme court
to adequately determine the constitutionality of the act, and even if the court were able
to answer the questions certified, its answer would not be determinative of the issue out
of which they arose. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709.

Party's request for abstention and certification comes too late, where the case has
been tried and the district court has made its decision, and where dismissal, abstention
or certification would promote, not prevent, fragmentation of water adjudication
proceedings. N.M. ex rel. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. of Am., 570 F.2d 1364 (10th
Cir. 1978).