A. The legislature finds that the proliferation and accumulation of litter discarded
throughout the state constitutes a public nuisance and damages the economy of the
state by making it less attractive to tourists and newcomers. There is a need to
anticipate, plan for and accomplish effective litter control through a state-coordinated
plan of education, control, prevention, recycling and elimination.
B. The purpose of the Litter Control and Beautification Act is to accomplish litter
control by vesting in the department authority to eliminate litter from the state to the
maximum practical extent. The department shall aid in establishing a statewide keep
America beautiful program. The department shall cooperate with cities, counties and
other departments of state government in developing a statewide litter and solid waste
reduction program.
C. The Litter Control and Beautification Act is intended to add to and coordinate
existing litter control and removal efforts, except as specifically stated in that act.
History: Laws 1985, ch. 23, § 2; 1989, ch. 10, § 1; 2020, ch. 33, § 2.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2020 amendment, effective May 20, 2020, in Subsection B, after "keep America
beautiful", deleted "system".
The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, substituted "damages" for "may
damage" and inserted "recycling" in the first sentence in Subsection A, and made minor
stylistic changes in Subsection B.
Notes of Decisions
Martinez v. Rsch. Park, Inc., 410 P.2d 200 (N.M. 1965).
· cites it 5× “Section 67-16-2, N.M.S.A. 1953, defines a "contractor" as a person or organization who "undertakes * * * or purports to *206 have the capacity to * * * construct, alter, repair, add to or improve any building, * * * or other structure * * * or any part thereof.”
Crumpacker v. Adams, 426 P.2d 781 (N.M. 1967).
· cites it 3× “However, it is axiomatic that a defendant, seeking to invoke the statute prohibiting an unlicensed contractor from maintaining an action, must establish that the plaintiff was in fact required by § 67-16-2, N.M.S.A.1953, to be licensed. We find neither a finding of any fact by…”
Raby v. Westphall Homes, Inc., 414 P.2d 227 (N.M. 1966).
· cites it 4× “2d 200 , we held that an electrical contractor was a contractor within the purview of § 67-16-2, supra, and was required to allege that he had a contractors’ license at the time he performed his service.”
Nickels v. Walker, 395 P.2d 679 (N.M. 1964).
· cites it 2× “, copartnership, corporation, association, or other organization, or any combination of any thereof, who for either a price, fee, or percentage, undertakes or offers to undertake, or purports to have the capacity to undertake to construct, alter, repair, add to or improve any…”
Lakeview Investments, Inc. v. Alamogordo Lake Vill., Inc., 520 P.2d 1096 (N.M. 1974).
“2d 200 , we held that an electrical contractor was a contractor within the purview of § 67-16-2, supra, and was required to allege that he had a contractors’ license at the time he performed his service.”
Salter v. Kindom Uranium Corp., 351 P.2d 375 (N.M. 1960).
· cites it 2× “2d 627 , where it was held that a contract to drill a water well for irrigation purposes came within the exception of § 67-16-2, N.M.S.A. 1953, that the contractors' licensing act did not apply to "agriculture.”
Cancienne, Inc. v. Sw. Cmty. Inns, Inc., 458 P.2d 587 (N.M. 1969).
· cites it 2× “The amendments resulting in the 1961 statute are shown by brackets indicating deletions, and italics indicating additions, in the following quotation from § 67-16-2, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. “A contractor, within the meaning of the Contractors’ License Law * * *, is a person, firm,…”
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.