State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 392 P.2d 775, 776 (1964); In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-834, 26 Ariz. App. 485, 549 P.2d 580, 583-84 (1976). See Durand v. New Mexico Comm'n on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 553 P.2d 714, 715 (Ct.App. 1976). Of course, some parts of state appeals statutes might be framed so that compliance by the federal court with all their provisions would be impossible ( e. g., specifying which district or which intermediate court of appeals is the proper forum for hearing the appeal).

In such a case, we undoubtedly would hold that the district court lacked appellate jurisdiction and that the remedy of an applicant or protestant was by a writ of certiorari. See Durand v. New Mexico Comm'n on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 435, 553 P.2d 714, 715 (Ct.App. 1976) (citing N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13, and Roberson v. Board of Educ., 78 N.M. 297, 430 P.2d 868 (1967)). But no reason suggests itself as to why the legislature would have conferred a right of district-court review in the one case and denied it in the other.

However, Sun Country concedes the parties are not left without remedy; they can seek a writ of certiorari from the district court. Durand v. New Mexico Comm'n on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 435, 553 P.2d 714, 715 (Ct.App. 1976); Manfre, 102 N.M. at 243-44, 693 P.2d at 1275-76. While this procedure may not be as convenient or expeditious for the parties, we must observe our jurisdictional limits.

City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So.2d 133, 136 (Fla. 1961). A statute conferring a right to appeal upon a litigant relates to a substantive, rather than a procedural right. Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So.2d 286, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (Hubbart, J., concurring); Durand v. New Mexico Comm'n on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 435, 553 P.2d 714, 715 (Ct.App. 1976). See also State v. Furen, 118 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1960) (substantive rights were created under statute authorizing a right to appeal orders of real estate commission to circuit court).

Based on the nature of the remedy of mandamus, as discussed above, as well as the fact that this appeal involves a review of an administrative agency's action, the residents are incorrect in arguing that the real issue in this case is the status of day care. The director and the shoppe argue that the residents' proper remedy was a writ of certiorari to the district court and rely on Durand v. New Mexico Comm'n on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 553 P.2d 714 (Ct.App. 1976), as support. In Durand, the plaintiff was dismissed by the commission on alcoholism and the state personnel board sustained the dismissal.

However, our appellate rules do not confer the right to appeal since the right of appeal is a matter of substantive law outside of the supreme court's rule making authority. See Durand v. New Mexico Comm'n on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 553 P.2d 714 (Ct.App. 1976). Thus, the appellate rules do not provide authority for interlocutory review in the instant matter.

It is from this letter decision that Hillhaven has appealed to this court. In proposing dismissal of the appeal, our calendar notice relied on Durand v. New Mexico Commission on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 553 P.2d 714 (Ct.App. 1976). Hillhaven correctly argues that Durand was decided prior to certain revisions of the rules for appellate procedure.

It states: "Except as may be otherwise provided by law, appeals from * * * actions of * * * administrative agencies or officials shall be taken by filing notice of appeal with the appellate court * * *." This contention is answered by Durand v. New Mexico Commission onAlcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 435, 553 P.2d 714 (Ct.App. 1976), which states: Durand contends that the Court of Appeals has subject matter jurisdiction under the Rules of Appellate Procedure for Civil Cases. He relies on Rule 13.

While the creation of a right to appeal is substantive, restrictions on the time and place of exercising this right are procedural and within the Supreme Court's rulemaking power. Olguin v. State, 90 N.M. 303, 563 P.2d 97 (1977); State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 183 P.2d 845 (1947); Durand v. New Mexico Commission on Alcoholism, 89 N.M. 434, 553 P.2d 714 (Ct.App. 1976). The inherent power to prescribe rules and regulate pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts of this state is vested in the Supreme Court under N.M. Const. art. III, § 1, and N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3.