N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 61 / Article 2
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 61-2-13 (2026)

Refusal, suspension or revocation of license.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
The board may refuse to issue, suspend or revoke any license, in accordance with
the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act [61-1-1 to 61-1-31 NMSA 1978], for any of
the following reasons:

   A. conviction of a felony, as shown by a certified copy of the record of the court of
conviction;

   B. malpractice or incompetence;

   C. continued practice by a person knowingly having an infectious or contagious
disease;

   D. advertising by means of knowingly false, misleading or deceptive statements or
advertising or attempting to practice under a name other than one's own;

   E. habitual drunkenness or addiction to the use of habit-forming drugs;

   F. aiding or abetting in the practice of optometry any person not duly licensed to
practice optometry in this state;

   G. lending, leasing or in any other manner placing his certificate of license at the
disposal or in the service of any person not licensed to practice optometry in this state;

    H. employing, procuring or inducing an unlicensed person to practice optometry in
this state;

   I. violating any of the provisions of the Optometry Act; or

   J. committing any act defined as "unprofessional conduct" by regulation of the
board filed in accordance with the State Rules Act [Chapter 14, Article 4 NMSA 1978].
Without limiting the right of the board to determine what acts on the part of a licensee
constitute unprofessional conduct, the following acts shall be deemed to be
unprofessional conduct:

       (1)    any conduct of a character tending to deceive or defraud the public;

       (2)    the obtaining of a fee by fraud or misrepresentation;

       (3)    charging unusual, unreasonable or exorbitant fees;

       (4)    "splitting" or dividing a fee with any person;
       (5)    advertising professional superiority;

       (6)    advertising by any means, or granting, a discount for professional
services, prosthetic devices, eyeglasses, lenses, frames or mountings whether sold
separately or as part of the professional services; or

       (7)    using any type of "price advertising" which would tend to imply the
furnishing of professional services without cost or at a reduced cost to the public.

History: 1953 Comp., § 67-1-11, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 353, § 11.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Constitutional basis for prohibitions against advertising. — Laws prohibiting price
advertising and similar advertising by professional persons have as their constitutional
basis the rationale that the state has such an interest in the health of its citizens that it
may prevent advertising or price promulgation by professional individuals engaged in
treating the human body or any part thereof. 1963 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 63-119 (rendered
under former law).

Applicability to optometrists in state. — An optometrist doing business in New
Mexico must carry on the profession in accordance with the laws of this state. 1969 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 69-80.

Out-of-state advertising. — The placing of prohibited trade advertising with out-of-
state media by a New Mexico optometrist fell within the prohibition of the former New
Mexico Optometry Act (67-7-1, 1953 Comp. et seq.). 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-80.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons
and Other Healers §§ 74 to 100.

Right of corporation or individual, not himself licensed, to practice optometry through
licensed employee, 102 A.L.R. 343, 128 A.L.R. 585.

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

Stay pending review of judgment or order revoking or suspending license, 166 A.L.R.
575.

Validity of governmental regulation of optometry, 22 A.L.R.2d 939.

Comment note on hearsay evidence in proceedings before state administrative
agencies, 36 A.L.R.3d 12.
Improper or immoral sexually related conduct toward patient as ground for disciplinary
action against physician, dentist, or other licensed healer, 59 A.L.R.4th 1104.

Ophthalmological malpractice, 30 A.L.R.5th 571.

70 C.J.S. Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Health-Care Providers §§ 35 to 42.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1962–2006 · leading case: Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 824 P.2d 1033 (N.M. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 824 P.2d 1033 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× ““Final judgments and decrees, entered by district courts in all cases tried pursuant to the provisions of this section shall remain under the control of such courts for a period of thirty days after the entry thereof, and for such further time as may be necessary to enable the…”
Measday v. Sweazea, 438 P.2d 525 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 6× “An allowance for attorney fees is authorized by § 61-2-13, N.M.S.A.1953. We will not change an allowance made by the trial court unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion.”
Home Plumbing & Contracting Co. v. Pruitt, 372 P.2d 378 (N.M. 1962). · cites it 3× “Section 61-2-13, N.M.S.A.1953, provides that the trial court may allow, as part of the costs, reasonable attorney fees in the district and Supreme Courts.”
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 137 P.3d 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “But see NMSA 1978, § 61-2-13(B) (1973) (stating that optometrists may be disciplined for "malpractice or incompetence").”
Daughtrey v. Carpenter, 477 P.2d 807 (N.M. 1970). · cites it 2× “Section 61-2-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., also permits the court to allow additional attorney’s fees for this appeal.”
Cabot v. First Nat'l Bank of Santa Fe, 474 P.2d 478 (N.M. 1970). “Where our Mechanics’ and Material-men’s Lien Statute (§ 61-2-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.) allows the trial court to fix attorney fees in both the district and appellate courts, we have remanded with direction to the district court to allow and fix the attorney fees for appellee’s…”
Dunson Contractors, Inc. v. Koury, 418 P.2d 66 (N.M. 1966). · cites it 2× “It is so ordered. MOISE and COMPTON, JJ., concur. OPINION ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES NOBLE, Justice.”
Tyner v. DiPaolo, 416 P.2d 150 (N.M. 1966). “He indicates that § 61-2-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., provides for such fees in actions relative to mechanic’s liens; however, in his reply brief appellant acknowledges that this is not such an action.”
Brito v. Carpenter, 472 P.2d 979 (N.M. 1970). “As to the allowance of attorneys’ fees to appellee, this is only authorized “as part of the costs,” § 61-2-13, supra. If the action was not timely for the relief sought, it must be dismissed in toto, including costs and attorney fees, and the costs reassessed pursuant to Rule…”
B & J Crane & Rigging, Inc. v. Beker Resources Corp., 587 F.2d 1065 (10th Cir. 1978). “Beker also challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under N.M. StatAnn. § 61-2-13 (1953), which grants such fees to successful lien claimants.”
— N.M. Stat. § 61-2-13(B) — 1 case
New Mexico Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 137 P.3d 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “But see NMSA 1978, § 61-2-13(B) (1973) (stating that optometrists may be disciplined for "malpractice or incompetence").”
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.