The court or judge, by an indorsement on the writ, shall allow the same, designate
the return day thereof and direct the manner of service.
History: Laws 1884, ch. 1, § 42; C.L. 1884, § 1997; C.L. 1897, § 2765; Code 1915, §
3417; C.S. 1929, § 86-107; 1941 Comp., § 26-108; 1953 Comp., § 22-12-8.
ANNOTATIONS
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 §§ 411, 428,
480.
55 C.J.S. Mandamus §§ 319, 321, 350, 351.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case:
Hoyt v. State, 2015-NMCA-108, 359 P.3d 147.
Hoyt v. State, 2015-NMCA-108, 359 P.3d 147.
· cites it 2× “This pleading laid out OMI’s belief that 18 the writ was alternative for allegedly failing to include language required by the 5 1 statutes governing peremptory writs and, therefore, permitted a response under 2 NMSA 1978, § 44-2-8 (1884). In this “answer,” OMI asserted…”
Franklin v. Corizon Health, No. A-1-CA-40037 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2022).
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 44-2-8 (1884) (explaining that the court shall, “by an indorsement on the writ,” provide a return date and direct the manner of service); Trujillo, 2005-NMCA-095, ¶ 9 .”
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.