Chapter 70, Article 2 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Oil and Gas Act".
History: 1953 Comp., § 65-3-1.1, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 237, § 1; 1989, ch. 130, §
13.
ANNOTATIONS
The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, substituted "Chapter 70, Article 2
NMSA 1978" for "Sections 65-3-1.1 through 65-3-31 and 65-3-35 and 65-3-36 NMSA
1953".
Law reviews. — For article, " 'New Mexican Nationalism' and the Evolution of Energy
Policy in New Mexico," see 17 Nat. Res. J. 283 (1977).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
SWEPI, LP v. Mora Cnty., 81 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D.N.M. 2015).
SWEPI, LP v. Mora Cnty., 81 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D.N.M. 2015).
· cites it 4× “It contends that, because of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 70-2-1 to -38, the Attorney General of New Mexico has opined that counties cannot regulate oil-and-gas activities.”
Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 2009-NMSC-013, 206 P.3d 135.
“1227 NMAC (12/1/08) (Rule 1227), 1 giving itself and the Oil Conservation Division (the Division) the authority to assess civil penalties and impose other sanctions against any person who violates the Oil and Gas Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, Sections 70-2-1 to -38 (1935, as amended…”
Johnson v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 1999-NMSC-021, 978 P.2d 327.
· cites it 2× “{3} The question we address in this appeal is whether the Commission violated the New Mexico Oil and Gas Act (OGA), NMSA 1978, §§ 70-2-1 to -38 (1935, as amended through 1996, prior to 1998 amendment), and its implementing regulations by issuing its order without first providing…”
Hartman v. Texaco Inc., 1997-NMCA-032, 937 P.2d 979.
· cites it 2× “l(D) to apply to trespass by substances beneath the surface of the land, we hold that Section 30-14-1.1(D) does not apply to such a trespass.”
Santa Fe Expl. Co. v. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 835 P.2d 819 (N.M. 1992).
“They assert that, because the Commission order effectively unitizes the Pool, a field in the primary development phase, the Commission exceeded its statutory authority. In addition, Santa Fe contends that the Commission violated its own rules when it allowed Stevens’s second…”
Hartman v. El Paso Nat. Gas Co., 763 P.2d 1144 (N.M. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The court allowed El Paso "a credit against dry gas takes from non-marginal wells in pools presently classified as prorated for the jury award of $2,153,000 in compensatory damages,” according to a complicated formula which is not relevant to our determination of the issues on…”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 2011-NMCA-003, 149 N.M. 249.
· cites it 2× “The O & G Act provides the Division with “jurisdiction and authority over all matters relating to the conservation of oil and gas” and “jurisdiction, authority and control of and over all persons, matters or things necessary or proper to enforce effectively the provisions of…”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 247 P.3d 1134 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The O & G Act provides the Division with "jurisdiction and authority over all matters relating to the conservation of oil and gas" and "jurisdiction, authority and control of and over all persons, matters or things necessary or proper to enforce effectively the provisions of…”
Atencio v. State, 584 P.3d 985 (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ complaint continues by asserting that other legislative 9 enactments, such as the Oil and Gas Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 70-2-1 to -39 (1935, as 10 amended through 2019), do not control pollution.”
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.