A person who violates the provisions of Section 77-8-2, 77-8-3, 77-8-14 or 77-8-22
NMSA 1978 or rules adopted pursuant to any of those sections is guilty of a
misdemeanor for each head and, upon conviction shall be sentenced in accordance
with the provisions of Section 31-19-1 NMSA 1978.
History: 1941 Comp., § 49-891, enacted by Laws 1951, ch. 188, § 30; 1953 Comp., §
47-8-30; Laws 1999, ch. 282, § 43.
ANNOTATIONS
The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, rewrote the section, which formerly read:
"Any person who violates the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 16, or 26 of this act or rules
and regulations made in pursuance thereof, upon his conviction before any justice of the
peace or district court in this state, shall be fined in any sum not less than fifty dollars
($50.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) and in addition thereto may at the
discretion of the court trying the case be imprisoned in jail for any period of time not to
exceed six (6) months."
Notes of Decisions
Hayden v. Lee, 562 P.2d 833 (N.M. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” The issue is whether Rule 2-B applies to administrators such as Hayden. We hold that it does not. First, the title of Rule 2-B refers to “non-tenure teachers.”
Lenning v. New Mexico State Bd. of Educ., 485 P.2d 364 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 3× “The teacher contends that the grounds for which she was not re-employed are really unsatisfactory work performance and, accordingly, she was not afforded the procedural safeguards regarding conferences of State Board Rule 2-A, (Tenure) adopted October 16-17, 1968 and filed in…”
Quintana v. State Bd. of Educ., 472 P.2d 385 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).
“1), and the regulations adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to § 77-8-18, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt.”
Black v. Bd. of Educ. of Jemez Mountain Sch. Dist. No. 53, 529 P.2d 271 (N.M. 1974).
“Pursuant to this meeting, Black was suspended from his duties as superintendent, but continued to receive his monthly salary until his contract expired. Appellant contends that he was denied due process guarantees set out in the State Board of Education Regulations as provided…”
Atencio v. Bd. of Educ. of Penasco Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4, 658 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 3× “5 The basis for his claim is that his discharge was premised on his allegedly unsatisfactory work performance and that he was denied the conference procedures required in such cases by N.M. Stat.Ann. § 77-8-18, as implemented by the State Board’s Regulation No.”
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.