New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 61-2-6 (2026)
Optometry board organization; meetings; compensation;
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
powers and duties.
A. The board shall annually elect a chair, a vice chair and a secretary-treasurer;
each shall serve until a successor is elected and qualified.
B. The board shall meet at least annually for the purpose of examining candidates
for licensure. Special meetings may be called by the chair and shall be called upon the
written request of a majority of the board members. A majority of the board members
currently serving constitutes a quorum.
C. Members of the board may be reimbursed as provided in the Per Diem and
Mileage Act [10-8-1 to 10-8-8 NMSA 1978] but shall receive no other compensation,
perquisite or allowance.
D. The board has the authority to determine what constitutes the practice of
optometry in accordance with the provisions of the Optometry Act and has jurisdiction to
exercise any other powers and duties pursuant to that act. The board may issue
advisory opinions and declaratory rulings pursuant to that act and rules promulgated in
accordance with the State Rules Act [Chapter 14, Article 4 NMSA 1978], but shall not
expand the scope of practice of optometry beyond the provisions of the Optometry Act.
E. The board shall:
(1) administer and enforce the provisions of the Optometry Act;
(2) promulgate in accordance with the State Rules Act, all rules for the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Optometry Act;
(3) adopt and use a seal;
(4) administer oaths and take testimony on matters within the board's
jurisdiction;
(5) keep an accurate record of meetings, receipts and disbursements;
(6) keep a record of examinations held, together with the names and
addresses of persons taking the examinations and the examination results. Within thirty
days after an examination, the board shall give written notice to each applicant
examined of the results of the examination as to the respective applicant;
(7) certify as passing each applicant who obtains a grade of at least seventy-
five percent on each subject upon which the applicant is examined; providing that an
applicant failing may apply for re-examination at the next scheduled examination date;
(8) keep a book of registration in which the name, address and license
number of licensees shall be recorded, together with a record of license renewals,
suspensions and revocations;
(9) grant, deny, renew, suspend or revoke licenses to practice optometry in
accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Licensing Act [Chapter 61, Article 1
NMSA 1978] for any cause stated in the Optometry Act;
(10) develop and administer qualifications for certification for the use of
pharmaceutical agents as authorized in Section 61-2-10.2 NMSA 1978, including
minimum educational requirements and examination, as required by Section 61-2-10.2
NMSA 1978 and provide the board of pharmacy with an annual list of optometrists
certified to use pharmaceutical agents as authorized in Section 61-2-10.2 NMSA 1978;
and
(11) provide for the suspension of an optometrist's license for sixty days upon a
determination of use of pharmaceutical agents without prior certification in accordance
with Section 61-2-10.2 NMSA 1978, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard
before the board.
History: 1953 Comp., § 67-1-5, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 353, § 5; 1977, ch. 30, § 2;
1979, ch. 12, § 2; 1985, ch. 241, § 3; 1995, ch. 20, § 3; 2003, ch. 408, § 2; 2015, ch.
131, § 2; 2022, ch. 39, § 11.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2022 amendment, effective May 18, 2022, provided that the optometry board is
subject to the provisions of the State Rules Act for promulgating rules; in the section
heading, added "Optometry board"; in Subsection D, after "rules promulgated in
accordance with", deleted "that" and added "the State Rules", and after "beyond the
provisions of", deleted "that" and added "the Optometry"; and in Subsection E,
Paragraph E(2), deleted "adopt, publish and file", and added "promulgate", and after "in
accordance with the", deleted "the Uniform Licensing Act and".
The 2015 amendment, effective June 19, 2015, made changes to the statutory powers
of the board of optometry; in Subsection A, after "elect a", deleted "chairman" and
added "chair", after "a vice", deleted "chairman" and added "chair", and after "serve
until", deleted "his" and added "a"; in Subsection B, after "called by the", deleted
"chairman" and added "chair"; added new Subsection D and redesignated the
succeeding subsection accordingly; in Paragraph (2) of Subsection E, after "all rules",
deleted "and regulations"; in Paragraph (7) of Subsection E, after "upon which", deleted
"he" and added "the applicant"; in Paragraph (10) of Subsection E, after "for the use of",
deleted "topical ocular pharmaceutical agents and oral", after "Section", deleted "61-2-
10" and added "61-2-10.2", and after "certified to use", deleted "topical ocular
pharmaceutical agents and oral"; and in Paragraph (11) of Subsection E, after
"Section", deleted "61-2-10" and added "61-2-10.2".
The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, deleted Paragraph D(12), concerning
employment of agents or attorneys.
The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, in Subsection B, substituted "at least
annually" for "in January and July of each year" in the first sentence, deleted former
provisions relating to the time for examination of candidates for licensure and notices of
meetings, and made stylistic changes; and, in Paragraph D(10), inserted "and oral
pharmaceutical agents as authorized in Section 61-2-10.2 NMSA 1978" in two places.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 70 C.J.S. Physicians, Surgeons, and
Other Health-Care Providers §§ 21 to 24.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1955–1974 · leading case: Chavez v. Sedillo, 284 P.2d 1026 (N.M. 1955).
Chavez v. Sedillo, 284 P.2d 1026 (N.M. 1955). “n the pleadings did not specify the nature of the fatal variance, but it appears from the briefs of counsel here that argument was made to the lower court respecting variance between the statement in the claim of lien as to the terms, time given and conditions of the contract…”
Allsop Lumber Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 385 P.2d 625 (N.M. 1963). “Appellants first assert that the lien as filed was defective and not in accord with our law in that § 61-2-6, N.M.S.A. 1953, requires that the claim filed with the county clerk must, among other things, contain “a statement of the terms, time given and conditions” of the…”
Daughtrey v. Carpenter, 477 P.2d 807 (N.M. 1970). “At the trial, appellants objected to-the admission into evidence of appellee Blueher’s claim of lien, because it was' not properly verified by the person signing the claim, as required by § 61-2-6, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. On June 7, 1966, a verified claim of lien was filed with the…”
Rutledge v. Johnson, 465 P.2d 274 (N.M. 1970). “2d 378 (1962), which held that an unverified mechanic’s lien claim was unenforceable, Our mechanic’s lien law (§ 61-2-6, N.M.S.A.1953) requires verification by or on behalf of the person claiming the benefit of the statute.”
Home Plumbing & Contracting Co. v. Pruitt, 372 P.2d 378 (N.M. 1962). “Our statute (§ 61-2-6, N.M.S.A.1953) requires that a claim of lien “must be verified by the oath of’” the person claiming the benefit of the lien statute “or of some other person.”
Boone v. Smith, 447 P.2d 23 (N.M. 1968). “The contention is also made that the lien of crossclaimant, New Mexico Boiler, was a nullity because the land identified in the claim of lien was not that upon which improvements were made as required by § 61-2-6, N.M.S.A. 1953. We take notice that, on the claim of lien form,…”
Smith Constr. Co. v. Knights of Columbus, Council 1226, 519 P.2d 286 (N.M. 1974). “Therefore, appellant filed of record a claim of Mechanic’s and Material-man’s Lien pursuant to § 61-2-6, N.M.S. A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 9, Pt.”
Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n of Santa Fe v. Fidel, 437 P.2d 134 (N.M. 1968). “We would first take note that § 61-2-6, N.M.S.A.1953, provides that claims of lien to be effective must be filed and, among other things, must set forth “* * * a statement of the terms, time given and conditions of his [claimant’s] contract * * In our view, these items are…”
Crego Block Co. v. D. H. Overmyer Co., 458 P.2d 793 (N.M. 1969). “Lastly, defendants contend that plaintiff’s claim of lien did not accurately or sufficiently state “the terms, time given, and conditions of plaintiff’s contract,” required by § 61-2-6, N.M.S.A.1953. The claim of lien included the language: “That the terms, time given and…”
Tabet Lumber Co. v. Baughman, 439 P.2d 706 (N.M. 1968). “We think the trial' court erred in concluding that the lien was: timely filed.”
Hill v. Long, 299 P.2d 472 (N.M. 1956). “§ 61-2-6, which allows to those working- under original contractors 90 days in which to file a lien for default in payment of that which they have earned; and it is much argued as to when the work was abandoned, in the meaning of the law, and as to the date when the 90 days…”
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.