New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 50-6-3 (2026)

Maximum hours for children fourteen to sixteen

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Children over the age of fourteen and under the age of sixteen years shall not be employed or permitted to labor at any gainful occupation for more than forty hours in any one week nor more than eight hours in any one day when school is not in session unless otherwise provided for in the Child Labor Act.

B. Children over the age of fourteen or under the age of sixteen shall not be employed unless otherwise provided for in the Child Labor Act:

(1) before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. during the calendar school year;

(2) before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. outside of the calendar school year;

(3) during school hours, except as provided for in work experience and career exploration programs;

(4) more than three hours per day during school days; or

(5) more than eighteen hours per week during school weeks.

History: Laws 1925, ch. 79, § 3; C.S. 1929, § 80-108; 1941 Comp., § 57-503; 1953 Comp., § 59-6-3; Laws 1973, ch. 115, § 3; 2007, ch. 257, § 6.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For children over age twelve permitted to sell or deliver newspapers, see 50-6-16 NMSA 1978.

The 2007 amendment, effective June 15, 2007, provided that children between fourteen and sixteen may not be employed for more than forty hours per week or eight hours in a day when school is not in session and added Subsection B.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Constitutionality of statute limiting hours of labor of children in private industry, 90 A.L.R. 815.

43 C.J.S. Infants § 99; 51B C.J.S. Labor Relations §§ 1021, 1043.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2022 · leading case: Weststar Mortg. Corp. v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 710 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).
Weststar Mortg. Corp. v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 710 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “{55} Our conclusion is supported by the facts that the seminal case of Sunwest Bank was not cited and that the cases on which the Supreme Court relied were cases dealing with interest as an element of damages under NMSA 1953, § 50-6-3 (Repl.1962), now NMSA 1978, § 56-8-3 (1983),…”
Grynberg v. Roberts, 698 P.2d 430 (N.M. 1985). · cites it 4× “O'Meara and Shaeffer interpreted NMSA 1978, Section 56-8-3, and its forerunner, NMSA 1953, Section 50-6-3, to allow prejudgment interest in certain instances.”
Folz v. State, 857 P.2d 39 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “The Fought court cited NMSA 1953, Sections 50-6-3 & -4 as support for this statement.”
Kennedy v. Moutray, 572 P.2d 933 (N.M. 1977). · cites it 3× “Appellant contends that § 50-6-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. 1962) provides that interest is allowed upon open account at 6% per annum after six months from the date of the last item.”
Trujillo v. Beaty Elec. Co., Inc., 577 P.2d 431 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “1, 1974) and § 50-6-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt.”
Medina v. Wicked Wick Candle Co., 577 P.2d 420 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Section 50-6-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt.”
Trujillo v. Tanuz, 508 P.2d 1332 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “We do not find it necessary to determine whether § 50-6-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt.”
Matter of Hamilton, 637 P.2d 542 (N.M. 1981). “…SO ORDERED. SOSA, Senior Justice, and PAYNE, J., concur. 1 . The statutory rate of interest will be six percent (6%). § 50-6-3, N.M.S.A.1953.”
Tome Land & Improvement Co. v. Silva, 494 P.2d 962 (N.M. 1972). “With regard to the statutory interest rate on judgments, see § 50-6-3, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Repl. Vol.”
O'MEARA v. Com. Ins. Co., 376 P.2d 486 (N.M. 1962). “The applicable statute is § 50-6-3, N.M. S.A.1953, which, insofar as in any sense pertinent, is as follows: “The rate of interest, in the absence of a written contract fixing a different rate, shall be six per cent [6%] per annum, in the following cases: “First.”
Fought v. State, 764 P.2d 142 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “See Bettini v. City of Las Cruces, 82 N.M. 633 , 485 P.”
Tabet Lumber Co. v. Chalamidas, 489 P.2d 885 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). “It did so on the basis of § 50-6-3 (Fifth), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol.”
N.M. Stat. § 50-6-3(A): 1 case
Bishop v. Evangelical Lutheran (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
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.