N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 44 / Article 6
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 44-6-1 (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 [44-6-1 to 44-6-15 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the "Declaratory Judgment
Act."

History: 1953 Comp., § 22-6-4, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 340, § 1.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For procedure with respect to declaratory judgment, see Rule 1-
057 NMRA.

Law reviews. — For survey, "Civil Procedure in New Mexico in 1975," see 6 N.M. L.
Rev. 367 (1976).

For article, "Separation of Powers and the Judicial Rule-Making Power in New Mexico:
The Need for Prudential Restraints," see 15 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Gill v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd. of the Pub. Employees Ret. Ass'n of New Mexico, 90 P.3d 491 (N.M. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gill v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd. of the Pub. Employees Ret. Ass'n of New Mexico, 90 P.3d 491 (N.M. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals rejected Gill's two principal theories: (1) that New Mexico's Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to -15 (1975, as amended through 2003), constituted a waiver of state sovereign immunity, and (2) that state courts can apply the Ex parte Young…”
AFSCME v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cty., 2016 NMSC 17 (N.M. 2016). · cites it 3× “We focus on the statutory jurisdictional prerequisites of New Mexico’s Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to -15 (1975), and hold that AFSCME failed to satisfy those prerequisites.”
Pacheco v. Hudson, 415 P.3d 505 (N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “" {65} Instead of captioning its lawsuit to compel compliance with IPRA as a mandamus or a suit for injunctive relief, Valley Meat called it a "Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Ordering Production.”
Pacheco v. Hudson, 2018 NMSC 22 (N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “” {65} Instead of captioning its lawsuit to compel compliance with IPRA as a mandamus or a suit for injunctive relief, Valley Meat called it a “Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Ordering Production.”
Prot. & Advocacy Sys. v. City of Albuquerque, 195 P.3d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The Proceedings {11} Before the Ordinance went into effect, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to -15 (1975). Plaintiffs requested the district court to declare that the Ordinance is…”
Bd. of Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-News, 76 P.3d 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “The County argues the Newspaper is not entitled to attorney fees because (1) it brought its action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to -15 (1975), which does not provide for attorney fees; (2) denial of fees is consistent with Section 14-2-9(B)(4) which…”
Robison v. Katz, 610 P.2d 201 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Robison requested the trial court to determine his liability, if any, for misrepresentations made in connection with the sale of the Green Valley Mobile Home Park to defendant-appellant Beverly Katz. Robison was the real estate broker for the owners of the park,…”
Williams v. Foremost Ins., 102 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (D.N.M. 2015). · cites it 4× “1 Count III seeks to enjoin Defendant from contacting injured New Mexicans in violation of the New Mexico Reléase Act, NMSA 1978, § 41-1-1; and Count IV seeks a declaratory judgment under NMSA 1978, § 44-6-1, the Declaratory Judgment Act.”
State Ex Rel. Hanosh v. State Ex Rel. King, 217 P.3d 100 (N.M. 2009). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to-15 (1975). Correctly, this Court responded in the negative.”
Principal Mut. Life Ins. v. Straus, 863 P.2d 447 (N.M. 1993). · cites it 2× “This appeal requires us to determine if a district court’s ruling of liability pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978 §§ 44-6-1 to -15, is a final, appealable judgment when it leaves open for future resolution the amount of a damages award including attorney’s fees.”
Valenzuela v. Snyder, 2014 NMCA 061 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “The Valenzuelas correctly note that NMSA 1978, Section 44-6-4 (1975) of our Declaratory Judgment Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to -15 (1975), provides that “[a]ny person interested under a deed .”
Perry v. Williams, 70 P.3d 1283 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “A formal termination of Father’s parental rights is unnecessary because the trial court clearly had jurisdiction over Mother’s amended petition pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-6-1 to -15 (1975), to declare Father’s “rights, status or other legal…”
Show all 73 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.