N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 44 / Article 2
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 44-2-12 (2026)

[Judgment for plaintiff; damages; costs; peremptory writ.]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
If judgment is given for the plaintiff, he shall recover the damages which he has
sustained, together with costs and disbursements, and a peremptory mandamus shall
be awarded without delay.

History: Laws 1884, ch. 1, § 46; C.L. 1884, § 2001; C.L. 1897, § 2769; Code 1915, §
3421; C.S. 1929, § 86-111; 1941 Comp., § 26-112; 1953 Comp., § 22-12-12.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Final writ issued in plaintiff’s favor is, by law, a peremptory writ of mandamus. —
Where plaintiff, wife of decedent, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the office
of the medical investigator (OMI) and the chief medical investigator requesting the
district court compel the OMI to file a corrected death certificate concerning the
circumstances of decedent’s death, and where defendants filed an answer to the
petition, an evidentiary hearing was held, and the district court granted the writ of
mandamus, all procedures available for an alternative writ had been exhausted and the
final writ, which completely disposed of the case on the merits as a result of judgment in
favor of plaintiff, was peremptory. Pursuant to 12-201(A)(2) NMRA, the district court’s
issuance of a peremptory writ required defendants to file a notice of appeal within thirty
days of the district court’s issuance of the peremptory writ; where no notice of appeal or
motion directed against the judgment was filed within that time, defendants’ appeal was
untimely. Hoyt v. State, 2015-NMCA-108.

Attorney fees incurred by an employee in a mandamus action to compel the
employee’s governmental employer to appoint independent defense counsel to defend
the employee pursuant to the Tort Claims Act are not recoverable by the employee
under this section. Paz v. Tijerina, 2007-NMCA-109,142 N.M. 391, 165 P.3d 1167.

Section permits damage award in conjunction with granting of a peremptory writ of
mandamus. The trial court having denied the writ, appellant cannot recover damages.
N.M. Bus Sales v. Michael, 1961-NMSC-034, 68 N.M. 223, 360 P.2d 639.
Attorney fees are not recoverable as a part of the damages sustained, or costs and
disbursements, under this section. State ex rel. Roberson v. Board of Educ., 1962-
NMSC-064, 70 N.M. 261, 372 P.2d 832.

This section does not mean that appeal lies from "judgment" granting writ of
mandamus if the issue of damages has not been resolved. Village of Los Ranchos v.
Sanchez, 2004-NMCA-128, 136 N.M. 528, 101 P.3d 339, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-
011, 136 N.M. 656, 103 P.3d 580.

Law reviews. — For survey, "Torts: Sovereign and Governmental Immunity in New
Mexico," see 6 N.M. L. Rev. 249 (1976).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus §§ 357, 495
to 498.

Allowance of damages to successful plaintiff or relator in mandamus, 73 A.L.R.2d 903,
34 A.L.R.4th 457.

Allowance of attorney's fees in mandamus proceedings, 34 A.L.R.4th 457.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 342, 375 to 379.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2000–2015 · leading case: Bd. of Trs. of Vill. of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 2004 NMCA 128 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Trs. of Vill. of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 2004 NMCA 128 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “We limit our discussion to the order for damages based on the motion to dismiss. {8} In her response to the motion to dismiss, Respondent Cronk contends that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is appeal-able in and of itself, without regal'd to the issue of damages.”
Hoyt v. State, 2015 NMCA 108 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “If judgment for the plaintiff is given, issuance of a 14 peremptory writ is the final step in all mandamus proceedings, Section 44-2-12, and 15 the final order that must be appealed to a higher court.”
Paz v. Tijerina, 165 P.3d 1167 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Section 41-4-4(B)(l) safeguards employees from expenses, including the cost of defense, arising from tort actions, but not from mandamus actions.”
Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 140 P.3d 1117 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Section 44-2-12. The final judgment is then reviewable on appeal as in any other case.”
Kucel v. New Mexico Med. Review Comm'n, 997 P.2d 823 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 44-2-12 (1884). 3 . Respondents have provided no authority to support their position that the law of the case doctrine prevents us from considering the issue whether the Director has discretion under the Act.”
Vigil v. Acequia de los Espinosa (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “We 4 reverse the order of the district court in failing to grant Petitioner a writ of mandamus 5 as requested, and remand with instructions and to set an evidentiary hearing to 6 determine whether to award Petitioner her costs and damages pursuant to NMSA 7 1978, § 44-2-12…”
N.E.A. of N.M. v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist. (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 17 NMSA 1978, § 44-2-12 (1884) (“If judgment is given for the plaintiff, he shall 18 recover the damages which he has sustained, together with costs and disbursements.”
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.