N.M. Stat. » Chapter 44 — Miscellaneous Civil Law Matters
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 44-2-14 (2026)

[Review of proceedings.]

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

That in all cases of proceedings by mandamus in any district court of this state, the final judgment of the court thereon shall be reviewable by appeal or writ of error in the same manner as now provided by law in other civil cases.

History: Laws 1887, ch. 60, § 1; C.L. 1897, § 2773; Laws 1899, ch. 80, § 8; Code 1915, § 3424; C.S. 1929, § 86-114; 1941 Comp., § 26-114; 1953 Comp., § 22-12-14.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For appeals and writs of error generally, see Rules 12-201 to 12- 216, and 12-501 to 12-505, NMRA.

Supreme Court of New Mexico may modify judgment of district court in mandamus on appeal. Territory ex rel. Coler v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1907-NMSC-018, 14 N.M. 134, 89 P. 252, aff'd, 215 U.S. 296, 30 S. Ct. 111, 54 L. Ed. 202 (1909).

Jurisdiction over mandamus parties. — Where a mandamus proceeding is consolidated with a district court appeal from a decision of the personnel board, the court of appeals has jurisdiction over the mandamus parties. State ex rel. N.M. State Hwy. Dep't v. Silva, 1982-NMCA-121, 98 N.M. 549, 650 P.2d 833.

The legislature precluded an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandamus if the issue of damages has not been resolved by enacting, in 1897, the language of this section. Village of Los Ranchos v. Sanchez, 2004-NMCA-128, 136 N.M. 528, 101 P.3d 339, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-011, 135 N.M. 656, 103 P.3d 580.

Order quashing peremptory writ of mandamus was not a final, appealable order where the writ directed the respondent public official to answer the petition for writ and where the answer raised issues of fact which the court had to resolve to determine if the public official had a clear duty to perform a ministerial act and whether he was performing that act. Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 2006-NMCA-093, 140 N.M. 168, 140 P.3d 1117.

Issuance of writ of mandamus was not final order for purposes of appellate review because it did not resolve the issue of damages requested by the petitioners. Village of Los Ranchos v. Sanchez, 2004-NMCA-128, 136 N.M. 528, 101 P.3d 339, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-011, 135 N.M. 656, 103 P.3d 580. Direct appeals. — District court mandamus orders, requiring hearings in the lower courts, are reviewed as direct appeals. Collado v. N.M. Motor Vehicle Div., 2005- NMCA-056, 137 N.M. 442, 112 P.3d 303.

Untimely appeal of 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.

Law reviews. — For article, "Mandamus in New Mexico," see 4 N.M. L. Rev. 155 (1974).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 52 Am. Jur. 2d Mandamus § 490.

Stay or supersedeas on appellate review in mandamus proceeding, 88 A.L.R.2d 420.

55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 362.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Bd. of Trs. of Vill. of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 2004-NMCA-128, 101 P.3d 339.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Trs. of Vill. of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 2004-NMCA-128, 101 P.3d 339. · cites it 14× “She relies on NMSA 1978, § 44-2-14 (1887), which states: “That in all cases of proceedings by mandamus in any district court of this state, the final judgment of the court thereon shall be reviewable by appeal or writ of error in the same manner as now provided by law in other…”
Cobb v. State Canvassing Bd., 2006-NMSC-034, 140 P.3d 498. · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 44-2-14 (1899). {21} In Petitioners’ petition to this Court for extraordinary relief, they claimed they had no plain or speedy alternative remedy at law.”
Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 2006-NMCA-093, 140 P.3d 1117. · cites it 2× “Section 44-2-14 provides: [I]n all eases of proceedings by mandamus in any district court of this state, the final judgment of the court thereon shall be reviewable by appeal or writ of error in the same manner as now provided by law in other civil cases.”
Hoyt v. State, 2015-NMCA-108, 359 P.3d 147. · cites it 4× “See NMSA 1987 § 44-2-14 (1887) (“[I]n 15 all cases of proceedings by mandamus in any district court of this state, the final 16 judgment of the court thereon shall be reviewable by appeal or writ of error in the 17 same manner as now provided by law in other civil cases.”
State Ex Rel. Whitehead v. Vescovi-Dial, 950 P.2d 818 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “The district court agreed with the State and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering the magistrate to conduct a preliminary examination in Defendant’s criminal case.”
Hart v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMCA-043, 126 N.M. 753. · cites it 2× “Before addressing the City’s challenge directly, we first comment on, without deciding, the issue of timeliness of the City’s appeal on the writ of mandamus.”
Hart v. City of Albuquerque, 975 P.2d 366 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 44-2-14 (1899); see also *371 Khalsa v.”
Collado v. New Mexico Motor Veh. Div., 2005-NMCA-056, 112 P.3d 303. · cites it 2× “Proper Appellate Procedure {7} The issue of proper appellate procedure arises because of NMSA 1978, § 44-2-14 (1887), which states that “in all cases of proceedings by mandamus in any district court of this state, the final judgment of the court thereon shall be reviewable by…”
State Ex Rel. Pilot Dev. Nw., Inc. v. State, 701 P.2d 390 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “VI, § 2, nor by NMSA 1978, Section 44-2-14. This court has subject matter jurisdiction in the mandamus appeal.”
State Ex Rel. New Mexico State High. Dep't v. Silva, 650 P.2d 833 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982). “See § 44-2-14, N.M. S.A. 1978. ' We affirm that portion of the district court judgment which affirmed the order of the Board requiring reinstatement of Silva as of November 1, 1980 with back pay and benefits.”
Martinez v. State, 796 P.2d 250 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). “See § 44-2-14. This court, however, does not have appellate jurisdiction over post-conviction remedy proceedings where the sentence involved is death or life imprisonment.”
Martinez v. State, 796 P.2d 250 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). “See § 44-2-14. This court, however, does not have appellate jurisdiction over post-conviction remedy proceedings where the sentence involved is death or life imprisonment.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.