N.M. Stat. » Chapter 62 — Electric, Gas and Water Utilities
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 62-11-3 (2026)

Appeal on the record

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

The appeal shall be heard on the record made before the commission, and the supreme court shall not permit the introduction of new evidence addressed to any of the issues presented at the hearing before the commission.

History: Laws 1941, ch. 84, § 68; 1941 Comp., § 72-903; 1953 Comp., § 68-9-3; Laws 1965, ch. 289, § 16; 1982, ch. 109, § 13.

ANNOTATIONS Compiler's notes. — Sections 62-11-1 to 62-11-6 of the Public Utility Act are still effective as the repeal of Chapter 62, Article 6 by Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, effective July 1, 2003 Chapter 108, Section 82 was repealed prior to taking effect by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003. Although Laws 2003, Chapter 336, Section 8, amended Laws 1998, Chapter 82, as amended, an amendment of a repealed section is ineffective. See Quintana v. N.M. Dep’t of Corrs., 100 N.M. 224, 668 P.2d 1101 (1983). Laws 2003, Chapter 416, Section 5 also repealed Laws 1998, Chapter 108, Section 82, as amended, a second time, however, that repeal is of no effect as the section had previously been repealed by Chapter 23, Section 1, Laws 2003.

Administrative decisions. — In review of administrative orders, additional evidence cannot be introduced. Llano, Inc. v. Southern Union Gas Co., 1964-NMSC-257, 75 N.M. 7, 399 P.2d 646.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 73B C.J.S. Public Utilities §§ 126 to 138.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Com'n, 2015 NMSC 13 (N.M. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Com'n, 2015 NMSC 13 (N.M. 2015). · cites it 2× “Appellee Kit Carson Electric Cooperative filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on two grounds: that the Order was not final and that the appeal was moot, issues we address in this opinion.”
Gonzales v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 697 P.2d 948 (N.M. 1985). · cites it 2× “On January 19, 1984, the Commission adopted with slight changes the Recommended Decision of the Hearing Examiner approving “the concept” of the Transfer Agreement.”
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. New Mexico Pub. Reg. Comm'n, 2015 NMSC 013 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Appellee Kit Carson Electric Cooperative filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on two grounds: that the Order was not final and that the appeal was moot, issues we address in this opinion. II. DISCUSSION Tri-State has the burden on appeal of showing that the Order is…”
Coll v. Picacho Hills Dev. Co., Inc. (Bankr. D.N.M. 2019). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978 § 62-11-3. Likewise, the Development Company could have appealed the Commission Order to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Comm'n (N.M. 2015). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION 11 {7} Tri-State has the burden on appeal of showing that the Order is “unreasonable” 12 or “unlawful.”
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.