New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 74-4-14 (2026)

Administrative actions; judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Any person who is or may be affected by any final administrative action of the board or the secretary may appeal to the court of appeals for further relief within thirty days after the action. All appeals shall be upon the record before the board or the secretary.

B. For appeals of regulations, the date of the action shall be the date of filing of the regulation under the State Rules Act [Chapter 14, Article 4 NMSA 1978].

C. Upon appeal, the court of appeals shall set aside the action only if it is found to be:

(1) arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion;

(2) not supported by substantial evidence in the record; or

(3) otherwise not in accordance with law.

D. A stay of enforcement of the action being appealed may be granted after hearing and upon good cause shown:

(1) by the board or the secretary, whichever took the action being appealed; or

(2) by the court of appeals if the board or the secretary denies a stay or fails to act upon an application for a stay within sixty days after receipt.

History: 1978 Comp., § 74-4-14, enacted by Laws 1992, ch. 43, § 6.

ANNOTATIONS Compiler's notes. — This section was enacted as 74-4-6 NMSA 1978 but was redesignated by the compiler, since a section with the same code number had previously been enacted (repealed by Laws 1981 (1st S.S.), ch. 8, § 12).

Untimely appeal of administrative action. — Where the New Mexico environment department (department) issued a determination in 2011 regarding the time-line of a five-year report on the feasibility of excavation of a mixed waste landfill and any likelihood of contaminants reaching groundwater, plaintiff’s 2014 appeal of the department’s 2011 decision regarding the time-line for the first five-year report was untimely. Citizen Action N.M. v. N.M. Env’t Dep’t, 2015-NMCA-058, cert. denied, 2015- NMCERT-005.

Order approving permit modification was proper. — Where the U.S. department of energy (DOE) and appellees, as co-operators of the waste isolation pilot plant (WIPP), an underground federal repository for radioactive waste material in New Mexico, held a permit to dispose of mixed waste, a mixture of radioactive waste and hazardous waste, at WIPP but sought approval from the New Mexico environment department (NMED) to modify their permit because the original permit anticipated the emplacement of 6.2 million cubic feet of mixed waste based on an incorrect assumption that the waste containers would be full of mixed waste, but because the permit incorrectly assumed the containers would be full, this created a "de facto" limit that could result in underutilizing the WIPP facility, and where the secretary of NMED approved the permit modification request that modified the method by which appellees and DOE tracked waste volumes disposed of at WIPP, and where appellants claimed that NMED's order was not in accordance with law and arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, NMED's order was proper, because the Hazardous Waste Act (HWA), §§ 74-4-1 through 74-4- 14 NMSA 1978, authorizes NMED to administer the state's hazardous waste management program consistent with federal law, the HWA provides that permittees may submit permit modification requests to NMED, and that NMED is charged with issuing a decision, the NMED's authority necessarily includes the responsibility to collect data regarding the amount of hazardous waste the HWA charges NMED with regulating, and the permit modification request enables the NMED to collect more, not less, data by tracking the volume of inner waste containers as well as outer waste containers, and neither federal law nor state law specify a particular method for calculating waste capacity, and therefore, contrary to appellants' argument, the NMED did not erroneously interpret federal law. Nuclear Waste P'ship, LLC v. Nuclear Watch N.M., 2022-NMCA-014.

ARTICLE 4A Radioactive Materials

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. N.M. Env't Dep't, 2014 NMCA 98 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. N.M. Env't Dep't, 2014 NMCA 98 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “” See § 74-4-14(A), (C)(3) (stating that we may reverse NMED’s decision if it is “not in accordance with law”).”

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. State, 62 P.3d 270 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Section 74-4-14(C). Southwest Research contends that the Secretary's treatment of the modification violated the Act and applicable regulations.”

Citizen Action New Mexico v. New Mexico Env't Dep't, 2015 NMCA 058 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-4-14 (1992), Citizen Action appeals the Department’s decision directly to this Court.”

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. New Mexico Env't Dep't, 2014 NMCA 098 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “” See § 74-4-14(A), (C)(3) (stating that we may reverse NMED’s decision if it is “not in accordance with law”).”

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “See § 74-4-14(A). 16 {5} In this case, the Secretary of NMED adopted the hearing officer’s findings, 17 conclusions, and recommendation to approve the PMR.”

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. Sec'y of N.M. Env't Dep't (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “See § 74-4-14(A). {5} In this case, the Secretary of NMED adopted the hearing officer’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation to approve the PMR.”

Citizen Action N.M. v. N.M. Env't Dep't (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-4-14 7 (1992), Citizen Action appeals the Department’s decision directly to this Court.”

United States v. New Mexico Env't Dep't (D.N.M. 2020). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 74-4-14(A) (Repl. Pamp. 2000) (emphasis added).”

United States v. New Mexico Env't Dep't (D.N.M. 2022). · cites it 2× “NMSA § 74-4-14(C). Those definitions are further construed and explained in state common law.”

— N.M. Stat. § 74-4-14(A) — 7 cases

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. N.M. Env't Dep't, 2014 NMCA 98 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “” See § 74-4-14(A), (C)(3) (stating that we may reverse NMED’s decision if it is “not in accordance with law”).”

Citizen Action New Mexico v. New Mexico Env't Dep't, 2015 NMCA 058 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-4-14 (1992), Citizen Action appeals the Department’s decision directly to this Court.”

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. New Mexico Env't Dep't, 2014 NMCA 098 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “” See § 74-4-14(A), (C)(3) (stating that we may reverse NMED’s decision if it is “not in accordance with law”).”

United States v. New Mexico Env't Dep't (D.N.M. 2020). “” NMSA 1978, § 74-4-14(A) (Repl. Pamp. 2000) (emphasis added).”

Citizen Action N.M. v. N.M. Env't Dep't (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 74-4-14 7 (1992), Citizen Action appeals the Department’s decision directly to this Court.”

— N.M. Stat. § 74-4-14(C) — 6 cases

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. v. State, 62 P.3d 270 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 74-4-14(C). Southwest Research contends that the Secretary's treatment of the modification violated the Act and applicable regulations.”

United States v. New Mexico Env't Dep't (D.N.M. 2022). “NMSA § 74-4-14(C). Those definitions are further construed and explained in state common law.”

Sw. Rsch. & Info. Ctr. (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). “See § 74-4-14(A). 16 {5} In this case, the Secretary of NMED adopted the hearing officer’s findings, 17 conclusions, and recommendation to approve the PMR.”

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.