Thompson v. McKinley County

7 Citing cases

  1. City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Electric Co.

    124 N.M. 640 (N.M. 1998)   Cited 35 times
    Concluding that this Court need not resolve the merits of a question certified by a federal court where the New Mexico Legislature had enacted a statute that rendered the question moot

    {24} We conclude that there is adequate precedent in decisions of this Court to allow a determination of the constitutionality of Section 3-24-1(E) under Article IV, Section 24. See Garcia, 119 N.M. at 539, 893 P.2d at 435 (addressing whether "the legislature has acted arbitrarily" and placing "the burden of producing evidence demonstrating the absence of a rational basis for the legislative decision" on the party challenging constitutionality under Article IV, Section 24); Thompson v. McKinley County, 112 N.M. 425, 427-29, 816 P.2d 494, 496-98 (1991) (evaluating the constitutionality of special legislation). The question is whether the Legislature "rationally could have determined" that particular facts made a general law inappropriate.

  2. Garcia on Behalf of Garcia v. La Farge

    119 N.M. 532 (N.M. 1995)   Cited 91 times
    Holding an objection sufficient if it alerts the trial court to the substance of the argument

    To determine whether the legislature has acted arbitrarily, we need inquire only whether there are some circumstances peculiar to the persons benefitted or burdened that make it reasonable to distinguish those persons from the persons not so benefitted or burdened. Compare Thompson v. McKinley County, 112 N.M. 425, 429, 816 P.2d 494, 498 (1991) (upholding a statute that authorized local elections in McKinley County to determine whether alcoholic beverages should be sold from drive-up windows because special circumstances in McKinley County required special remedial measures) with Keiderling v. Sanchez, 91 N.M. 198, 200, 572 P.2d 545, 547 (1977) (striking down as special legislation a statute that gave litigants in the second judicial district the right to disqualify three judges while giving all other litigants in the state the right to disqualify only one judge). We accord great weight to legislative classifications and will presume the constitutionality of a statute.

  3. Citizens For Fair Rates & The Env't v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n

    503 P.3d 1138 (N.M. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    {68} However, the Constitution "does not exclude special legislation ... when a law is required and general legislation cannot apply." Thompson v. McKinley Cnty. , 1991-NMSC-076, ¶ 4, 112 N.M. 425, 816 P.2d 494. "There is nothing in the Constitution which would invalidate a legislative act merely because it is special in character provided a local situation exists which under particular facts makes a general law inapplicable."

  4. U S West Communications, Inc. v. New Mexico State Corp. Commission

    123 N.M. 554 (N.M. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    An order which does not involve suspect classifications such as race, religion, or alienage, is presumed constitutional provided it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (classification must bear fair relationship to legitimate public purpose); Thompson v. McKinley County, 112 N.M. 425, 429-30, 816 P.2d 494, 498-99 (1991) (equal protection prohibits statutory classifications which are unreasonable or unrelated to statutory purpose). This Order does not implicate a suspect classification.

  5. Madrid v. St. Joseph Hosp

    122 N.M. 524 (N.M. 1996)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that different criterion for impairment evaluation did not result in dissimilar treatment of similarly-situated individuals

    34. The equal protection clauses found in the United States and New Mexico Constitutions prohibit the government from creating statutory classifications that are unreasonable, unrelated to a legitimate statutory purpose, or are not based on real differences. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.M. Const. art. II, § 18; Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) ("In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose."); Thompson v. McKinley County, 112 N.M. 425, 429-30, 816 P.2d 494, 498-99 (1991) (Equal Protection Clauses of state and federal constitutions prohibit statutes which "create classifications that are unreasonable, that do not relate to the statutory purpose, and that are not based on real differences."). 35.

  6. West Old Town Neighbor. Ass'n v. Albuquerque

    122 N.M. 495 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that an amendment to a sector plan rezoned landowner's property to a less restrictive use, and thus the City had to justify the change in accordance with the Miller rule and the City's Resolution 270-1980

    As the City correctly points out, the City Council may enact the zoning it chooses when it authors a sector plan. The City appears to argue that the challenged zoning action was legislative in nature and should be reviewed under the deferential standard described in Thompson v. McKinley County, 112 N.M. 425, 430, 816 P.2d 494, 499 (1991) (legislation is presumptively valid). See Downtown Neighborhoods Ass'n v. City of Albuquerque, 109 N.M. 186, 189, 783 P.2d 962, 965 (Ct.App. 1989) (enactment of zoning rules and regulations is a legislative function which must be reviewed with deference).

  7. Powell v. N.M. State Hwy. Transp. Dept

    117 N.M. 415 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 22 times
    Holding actual notice not shown when accident report by police did not expressly state injuries were caused by guardrail or that a claim would be filed or that plaintiff considered accident to be defendant's fault, even when police report was considered together with discussion between officer and defendant's foreman about accident and with knowledge blunt-end guardrails are hazardous

    Under the equal protection analysis using a rational basis standard, legislation will only be invalidated on constitutional grounds where the statute is devoid of rational support or serves no legitimate governmental purpose. See Thompson v. McKinley County, 112 N.M. 425, 430, 816 P.2d 494, 499 (1991); see also Day v. Memorial Hosp., 844 F.2d 728, 731 (10th Cir. 1988). Both this Court and courts in other jurisdictions have listed certain legislative objectives underlying statutory notice requirements.