New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 61-10-15 (2026)

Repealed.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
History: Laws 1933, ch. 117, § 13; 1941 Comp., § 51-813; Laws 1945, ch. 79, § 5;
1953 Comp., § 67-8-13; Laws 1975, ch. 296, § 11; 1978 Comp., § 61-10-15, repealed
and reenacted by Laws 2016, ch. 90, § 12; repealed by Laws 2021, ch. 54, § 49.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 2021, ch. 54, § 49 repealed 61-10-15 NMSA 1978, as enacted by
Laws 1933, ch. 117, § 13, relating to refusal and revocation of license, effective July 1,
2022. For provisions of former section, see the 2021 NMSA 1978 on
NMOneSource.com.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 137 P.3d 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 137 P.3d 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “ng that dieticians and nutritionists may be disciplined for conduct that is “grossly negligent or incompetent”); NMSA 1978, § 61-8-ll(G) (1998) (providing that podiatrists may be disciplined for “gross malpractice or incompetency”); NMSA 1978, § 61-9A-26(A)(7), (9) (2005)…”
— N.M. Stat. § 61-10-15(0) — 1 case
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 137 P.3d 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “ng that dieticians and nutritionists may be disciplined for conduct that is “grossly negligent or incompetent”); NMSA 1978, § 61-8-ll(G) (1998) (providing that podiatrists may be disciplined for “gross malpractice or incompetency”); NMSA 1978, § 61-9A-26(A)(7), (9) (2005)…”
— N.M. Stat. § 61-10-15(C) — 1 case
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 137 P.3d 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “ng that dieticians and nutritionists may be disciplined for conduct that is “grossly negligent or incompetent”); NMSA 1978, § 61-8-ll(G) (1998) (providing that podiatrists may be disciplined for “gross malpractice or incompetency”); NMSA 1978, § 61-9A-26(A)(7), (9) (2005)…”
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.