New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 60-3A-2 (2026)

Liquor policy of state; investigation of applicants;

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

responsibility of licensees. A. It is the policy of the Liquor Control Act that the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the state; and it is the responsibility of the director to investigate the qualifications of all applicants for licenses under that act, to investigate the conditions existing in the community in which the premises for which any license is sought are located before the license is issued, to the end that licenses shall not be issued to persons or for locations when the issuance is prohibited by law or contrary to the public health, safety or morals.

B. It is the intent of the Liquor Control Act that each person to whom a license is issued shall be fully liable and accountable for the use of the license, including but not limited to liability for all violations of the Liquor Control Act and for all taxes charged against the license.

History: Laws 1981, ch. 39, § 2.

ANNOTATIONS

Federal preemption. — New Mexico’s regulatory scheme of airlines’ alcoholic beverage services provided to passengers is impliedly preempted as it falls within the field of aviation safety that Congress intended federal law to occupy exclusively. However, the Twenty-first Amendment of the United States Constitution requires a balancing of New Mexico’s core powers and the federal interests underlying the FAA. US Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2010).

New Mexico Liquor Control Act is exercise of police power of the state, for the welfare, health, peace, temperance and safety of its people. Baca v. Grisolano, 1953- NMSC-028, 57 N.M. 176, 256 P.2d 792.

License not property right, but privilege in constitutional sense. — A liquor license is a privilege and not property within the meaning of the due process and contract clauses of the constitutions of this state and the nation, and in them licensees have no vested property rights. Baca v. Grisolano, 1953-NMSC-028, 57 N.M. 176, 256 P.2d 792.

The licensee has no vested property right in a liquor license as it is a privilege and not property. Yarbrough v. Montoya, 1950-NMSC-006, 54 N.M. 91, 214 P.2d 769.

Sale of liquor not inherent privilege of United States or state citizenship. — Retail sale of intoxicating liquor is not reckoned among the inherent privileges of a citizen of the United States or the state, but is a business which is attended with dangers to the community so that it may be entirely prohibited or authorized under such conditions as will limit its evil propensities to the utmost degree. Yarbrough v. Montoya, 1950-NMSC- 006, 54 N.M. 91, 214 P.2d 769. As between state and licensee, liquor license is mere revocable privilege vesting no property rights in the licensee. Nelson v. Naranjo, 1964-NMSC-209, 74 N.M. 502, 395 P.2d 228.

Liability of lessors. — Lessors of a liquor license are fully liable and accountable for debts incurred by the lessee in the course of his use of the license. Gavin Maloof & Co. v. Sw. Distrib. Co., 1987-NMSC-103, 106 N.M. 413, 744 P.2d 541.

In a case against an absent owner-lessor of a liquor license, arising out of the lessee's service of alcohol to an intoxicated patron who injured third parties (the plaintiffs), Section 41-11-1A NMSA 1978, enacted in 1983, under which the absent owner-lessor is liable for the acts of a lessee not in the employ of the licensee, was not applicable. At the time of the injury in 1982 the cause of action created by Subsection B of this section inured to the plaintiffs as a vested right, and the court could not apply Section 41-11-1A NMSA 1978 retroactively against the plaintiffs and divest them of that right. Ashbaugh v. Williams, 1987-NMSC-120, 106 N.M. 598, 747 P.2d 244.

The lessor of a liquor license can be held liable under the terms of Section 60-7A-16 NMSA 1978 (sales to intoxicated persons) if a violation is proved. Williams v. Ashbaugh, 1986-NMCA-073, 120 N.M. 731, 906 P.2d 263, aff'd, 1987-NMSC-120, 106 N.M. 598, 747 P.2d 244.

Purpose of liquor control legislation is to regulate and restrain and not to promote, and any loosening of that policy is the business of the legislature, not of the courts. State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra, 1970-NMSC-144, 82 N.M. 125, 477 P.2d 301; 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-03.

Purpose of liquor control legislation. — The Liquor Control Act is a police regulation and its purpose is, as stated therein, to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the state. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-68.

Power to control distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors is vested in legislature. In exercising its power, the New Mexico legislature has enacted laws providing a uniform, comprehensive regulatory scheme governing those areas where the state's interest is preeminent. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-23.

Law reviews. — For comment, "Intoxicating Liquors - Price Control - Fair Trade and Minimum Markup," see 4 Nat. Resources J. 189 (1964).

For article, "Constitutional Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Functions by Administrative Agencies," see 7 Nat. Resources J. 599 (1967).

For article, "An Administrative Procedure Act For New Mexico," see 8 Nat. Resources J. 114 (1968). For note, "On Building Better Laws for New Mexico's Environment," see 4 N.M. L. Rev. 105 (1973).

For survey of 1990-91 commercial law, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 661 (1992).

For article, "Bartlett Revisited: New Mexico Tort Law Twenty Years After the Abolition of Joint and Several Liability – Part One," see 33 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (2003).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 45 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 112.

"Owner," scope and import of term, in statutes requiring consent to granting of liquor license, 2 A.L.R. 800, 95 A.L.R. 1085.

Power to prohibit the possession of intoxicating liquor, irrespective of any intention to traffic therein, 2 A.L.R. 1085.

Civil liability of one taking out license for sale of liquor for benefit of another, 2 A.L.R. 1516.

Test of intoxicating character of liquor, 4 A.L.R. 1137, 11 A.L.R. 1233, 19 A.L.R. 512, 36 A.L.R. 725, 91 A.L.R. 513.

Federal constitutional or legislative provisions as to intoxicating liquors as affecting state legislation, 10 A.L.R. 1587, 11 A.L.R. 1320, 26 A.L.R. 661, 70 A.L.R. 132.

Validity of statute vesting discretion as to license for sale of liquor in public officials without prescribing a rule of action, 12 A.L.R. 1453, 54 A.L.R. 1104, 92 A.L.R. 400.

Private individual or corporation, power to impose license fee or a fine for benefit of, 13 A.L.R. 831, 19 A.L.R. 205.

Contracts of unlicensed dealers, validity and enforceability of, 30 A.L.R. 868, 42 A.L.R. 1226, 118 A.L.R. 646.

Revocation of liquor license of one person as ground for refusal of license to another, 153 A.L.R. 836.

Validity of statute leaving number of licenses to be granted to discretion of licensing authority, 163 A.L.R. 581.

Revocability of license for fraud or other misconduct before or at the time of its issuance, 165 A.L.R. 1138.

Grant or renewal of liquor license as affected by fact that applicant held such license in the past, 2 A.L.R.2d 1239. Construction of "grandfather clause" of statute or ordinance regulating or licensing business or occupation, 4 A.L.R.2d 667.

Women, provisions as to sale of liquor to, as affecting validity of regulatory statute, 9 A.L.R.2d 541.

State power to regulate price of intoxicating liquors, 14 A.L.R.2d 699.

Zoning regulation of intoxicating liquor as pre-empted by state law, 65 A.L.R.4th 555.

48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 193.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Ashbaugh v. Williams, 747 P.2d 244 (N.M. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ashbaugh v. Williams, 747 P.2d 244 (N.M. 1987). · cites it 16× “Under Section 60-3A-2(B) of the Liquor Control Act, enacted in 1981, the licensee is fully liable and accountable for the use of the license.”

Chavez ex rel. Baca v. Desert Eagle Distrib. Co., 2007 NMCA 018 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “We therefore hold that the hours and days of business section of the Act did not apply to the Casino in the present matter and thus reject Plaintiffs’ reliance on Section 60-7A-1 as a source of Defendants’ duty of care.”

Chavez v. Desert Eagle Distrib. Co., 151 P.3d 77 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “We therefore hold that the hours and days of business section of the Act did not apply to the Casino in the present matter and thus reject Plaintiffs' reliance on Section 60-7A-1 as a source of Defendants' duty of care.”

Williams v. Ashbaugh, 906 P.2d 263 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 17× “The motion alleged that Lessors could not be vicariously liable as lessors of the liquor licenses or under any other theory.”

Santillo v. New Mexico Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2007 NMCA 159 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Although Plaintiff acknowledges that the Administrative Procedures Act does not control this case, she argues that it expresses a general policy determination that a mere bureaucratic delay in issuing a renewal should not be permitted to interrupt the conduct of a licensee’s…”

Chronis v. State Ex Rel. Rodriguez, 670 P.2d 953 (N.M. 1983). · cites it 4× “Section 2 of the new Liquor Control Act (codified at NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2(A) (Repl.Pamp. 1981)) specifically states that it is the policy of the Act that "the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so…”

State v. Perea, 16 P.3d 1105 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “*1111 {18} The Liquor Control Act, NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2(A) (1981) states "that the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the…”

Trujillo Ex Rel. Est. of Trujillo v. Trujillo, 721 P.2d 1310 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 60-3A-2 states that it is “the policy of the Liquor Control Act that the sales, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the…”

Pruey v. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 715 P.2d 458 (N.M. 1986). · cites it 4× “1981) states that it is the policy of the New Mexico State Legislature, through the Liquor Control Act, that “the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and…”

Thriftway Mktg. Corp. v. State, 844 P.2d 828 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “This appeal does not raise the question of the nature or extent of possible judicial review of a decision by the Director to grant or deny the transfer of a license.”

State v. Perea, 2001 NMCA 002 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “{18} The Liquor Control Act, NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2(A) (1981) states “that the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the state.”

State v. Rivera, 853 P.2d 126 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2 (Repl.Pamp.1992); see also NMSA 1978, § 60-7A-4.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— N.M. Stat. § 60-3A-2(A) — 6 cases

Santillo v. New Mexico Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2007 NMCA 159 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “Although Plaintiff acknowledges that the Administrative Procedures Act does not control this case, she argues that it expresses a general policy determination that a mere bureaucratic delay in issuing a renewal should not be permitted to interrupt the conduct of a licensee’s…”

Chronis v. State Ex Rel. Rodriguez, 670 P.2d 953 (N.M. 1983). “Section 2 of the new Liquor Control Act (codified at NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2(A) (Repl.Pamp. 1981)) specifically states that it is the policy of the Act that "the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so…”

State v. Perea, 16 P.3d 1105 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). “*1111 {18} The Liquor Control Act, NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2(A) (1981) states "that the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the…”

Thriftway Mktg. Corp. v. State, 844 P.2d 828 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “This appeal does not raise the question of the nature or extent of possible judicial review of a decision by the Director to grant or deny the transfer of a license.”

State v. Perea, 2001 NMCA 002 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). “{18} The Liquor Control Act, NMSA 1978, § 60-3A-2(A) (1981) states “that the sale, service and public consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state shall be licensed, regulated and controlled so as to protect the public health, safety and morals of every community in the state.”

— N.M. Stat. § 60-3A-2(B) — 7 cases

Ashbaugh v. Williams, 747 P.2d 244 (N.M. 1987). “Under Section 60-3A-2(B) of the Liquor Control Act, enacted in 1981, the licensee is fully liable and accountable for the use of the license.”

Chavez ex rel. Baca v. Desert Eagle Distrib. Co., 2007 NMCA 018 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “We therefore hold that the hours and days of business section of the Act did not apply to the Casino in the present matter and thus reject Plaintiffs’ reliance on Section 60-7A-1 as a source of Defendants’ duty of care.”

Chavez v. Desert Eagle Distrib. Co., 151 P.3d 77 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “We therefore hold that the hours and days of business section of the Act did not apply to the Casino in the present matter and thus reject Plaintiffs' reliance on Section 60-7A-1 as a source of Defendants' duty of care.”

Williams v. Ashbaugh, 906 P.2d 263 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “The motion alleged that Lessors could not be vicariously liable as lessors of the liquor licenses or under any other theory.”

Gavin Maloof & Co. v. Sw. Distrib. Co., 744 P.2d 541 (N.M. 1987).

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.