N.M. Stat. » Chapter 74 — Environmental Improvement
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 74-9-27 (2026)

Hearing provisions for nonadjudicatory actions

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The board shall adopt procedural regulations to govern the procedures to be followed in hearings on nonadjudicatory actions of the board. As a minimum, the procedural regulations shall provide: (1) for hearings to be public and scheduled at times that allow greater public participation;

(2) requirements for prior notice of the hearing and the methods for giving that notice, which shall be designed to inform interested and affected persons of the nature of the action to be considered and the date, time and place of the hearing;

(3) for maintenance of a list of persons that desire to have notice of the hearings and provisions for giving notice to those persons;

(4) a reasonable opportunity for all persons desiring to be heard on the action under consideration to be heard without making the hearing process unreasonably lengthy or cumbersome or burdening the record with unnecessary repetition;

(5) for the board to designate a hearing officer to conduct a hearing and make a report and recommendation to the board;

(6) for the maintenance of a record of the hearing proceedings and assessment of the costs of any transcription of testimony that is required for review purposes; and

(7) for the place of the hearing to be in Santa Fe, and at other places the board may prescribe, for hearings on actions of general statewide application and for hearings on actions of limited local application to be held at a place in the area affected.

B. Actions taken by the board following a hearing on nonadjudicatory actions shall be:

(1) written and shall state the reasons for the action;

(2) made public when taken;

(3) communicated to all persons that have made a written request for notification of the action taken; and

(4) taken within not more than sixty days after the closing of the hearing or the date of submission of a report by a hearing officer.

History: Laws 1990, ch. 99, § 27.

ANNOTATIONS

Written basis for decision not required. — Even though statute does not explicitly state that the commission must provide a written factual and legal basis for its decision, administrative agencies must provide written factual and legal basis for their decisions in order to permit an effectual and meaningful review. Gila Res. Info. Project v. N.M. Water Control Comm'n, 2005-NMCA-139, 138 N.M. 625, 124 P.3d 1164, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-009, 138 N.M. 439, 120 P.3d 1182.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2005 · leading case: Sanchez v. Zanio's Foods, Inc., 2005-NMCA-134, 123 P.3d 788.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sanchez v. Zanio's Foods, Inc., 2005-NMCA-134, 123 P.3d 788. · cites it 2× “Perhaps there were justifiable reasons to reject the offer because Worker was unable to operate the trucks in the yard.”
Gila Resources Info. Proj. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Comm'n, 2005-NMCA-139, 124 P.3d 1164. · cites it 2× “But we will not simply defer to the Commission when the exercise of its adjudicatory power results in a dismissal with prejudice based on conclusions that lack support in the record and are not adequately supported by expressed factual and legal reasons. {37} The Legislature has…”
N.M. Stat. § 74-9-27(B)(1): 2 cases
Sanchez v. Zanio's Foods, Inc., 2005-NMCA-134, 123 P.3d 788. “Perhaps there were justifiable reasons to reject the offer because Worker was unable to operate the trucks in the yard.”
Gila Resources Info. Proj. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Comm'n, 2005-NMCA-139, 124 P.3d 1164. “But we will not simply defer to the Commission when the exercise of its adjudicatory power results in a dismissal with prejudice based on conclusions that lack support in the record and are not adequately supported by expressed factual and legal reasons. {37} The Legislature has…”
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.