N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 41 / Article 3
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 41-3-8 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
This act [41-3-1 to 41-3-8 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the Uniform Contribution
Among Tortfeasors Act.
History: 1941 Comp., §21-125, enacted by Laws 1947, ch. 121, § 9; 1953 Comp., § 24-
1-18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1958–1982 · leading case: State v. Barreras, 328 P.2d 74 (N.M. 1958).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barreras, 328 P.2d 74 (N.M. 1958). · cites it 4× “The basis for this plea was that no warrant was issued compelling defendant’s appearance as required by § 41-3-8, N.M.S.A.1953, and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction at the preliminary hearing.”
State v. Leyba, 453 P.2d 211 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “Section 41-3-8, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6).”
Sanchez v. Attorney Gen., 598 P.2d 1170 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “No statute confers jurisdiction upon the district court to order the furnishing of handwriting exemplars in this case. A grand jury could issue a subpoena for the exemplars and the district court could enforce the subpoena.”
Kinetics, Inc. v. El Paso Prods. Co., 653 P.2d 522 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982). “The plaintiff also states that under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, § 41-3-8 N.M.S.A.1978 (1982 Repl.Pamph.), there was no way that the defendant could be released.”
State v. Apodaca, 453 P.2d 764 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “Paragraph “First” of § 41-3-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6) provides for a transcript of the testimony of witnesses at a preliminary hearing.”
State v. Selgado, 429 P.2d 363 (N.M. 1967). “1953, requiring the magistrate “to examine the case” and § 41-3-8, N.M.S.A. 1953, requiring that the magistrate “examine the complainant and any witnesses who may be introduced by him” are directory only as to the quantity of the evidence and do not require an examination of all…”
State v. Hudson, 430 P.2d 386 (N.M. 1967). “1953, gives jurisdiction over the person of an accused who has already been arrested with probable cause and who is under confinement, and that § 41-3-8 does not further require that a warrant shall issue.”
State v. Easterling, 553 P.2d 1293 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). “Defendant was convicted of failure to appear in district court, in violation of § 41-3-8(A), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1975 Supp.”
State v. Wylie, 379 P.2d 86 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 2× “As a result of the investigation, the •committee made a report and, based thereon, the district attorney of the Third Judicial District filed motions under the provisions of § 41-3-8, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., asking the court to order the issuance of subpoenas for certain witnesses.”
State v. Mascarenas, 451 P.2d 567 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968). “In his bid to overturn the conviction he questions the adequacy of the preliminary hearing and claims his right to cross-examine under § 41-3-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (repl. vol. 6, 1964) was denied because of the examining magistrate’s refusal of his demand to examine, for possible use…”
— N.M. Stat. § 41-3-8(A) — 1 case
State v. Easterling, 553 P.2d 1293 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). “Defendant was convicted of failure to appear in district court, in violation of § 41-3-8(A), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1975 Supp.”
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.