N.M. Stat. » Chapter 65 — Motor Carriers
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 65-3-9 (2026)

Commercial motor vehicles; equipment; regulations

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

The director shall adopt regulations not inconsistent with or more stringent than applicable federal safety standards concerning the following parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of a commercial motor carrier:

A. lighting devices, reflectors and electrical equipment;

B. brake systems and performance; C. glazing and window obstructions;

D. fuel systems;

E. coupling devices and towing methods;

F. tires and wheels;

G. heaters;

H. exhaust systems;

I. frames and body components;

J. suspension systems;

K. steering systems;

L. cargo securement;

M. emergency safety equipment; and

N. any other miscellaneous parts and accessories he deems necessary.

History: 1978 Comp., § 65-3-9, enacted by Laws 1989, ch. 201, § 9.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case: Hernandez v. Grando's LLC, 429 P.3d 1259 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hernandez v. Grando's LLC, 429 P.3d 1259 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “" Section 65-3-12; see also § 65-3-4(A) (directing the adoption of regulations applicable to motor carrier safety that "shall not be inconsistent with or more stringent than applicable federal safety standards"); § 65-3-9 (directing the adoption of regulations "not inconsistent…”
Davila v. Jeff (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 14× “” The district court determined that Section 65-3-9 does not establish a sufficiently specific duty under the present circumstances and that Section 30-8-4 was not intended to address the harm that Plaintiffs suffered.”
— N.M. Stat. § 65-3-9(A) — 1 case
Davila v. Jeff (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). “” The district court determined that Section 65-3-9 does not establish a sufficiently specific duty under the present circumstances and that Section 30-8-4 was not intended to address the harm that Plaintiffs suffered.”
— N.M. Stat. § 65-3-9(F) — 1 case
Davila v. Jeff (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). “” The district court determined that Section 65-3-9 does not establish a sufficiently specific duty under the present circumstances and that Section 30-8-4 was not intended to address the harm that Plaintiffs suffered.”
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.