|
Summaries
of Recent New Mexico Appellate Opinions - Civil Cases
|
|
|
Full Opinions - Hard
Copy
|
Civil Cases: October 2008 (most
recent cases listed first)
NOTE: AS OF OCTOBER 20, 2008, THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO INDEFINITELY SUSPEND THE PUBLICATION OF CASE SUMMARIES.
Pena Blanca Partnership v. San Jose de Hernandez Community Ditch, CA 28,005 (Kennedy) Oct 20, 2008
Section 73-2-21(E), which provides an arbitrary and capricious standard of review in appeals to district court from decisions of ditch commissioners, does not violate either article XVI, section 5 (providing that decisions of state executive officers or bodies shall proceed on appeal de novo unless otherwise provided by law) or article II, section 18 (providing that equal protection shall not be denied) because the section is law that provides otherwise and because the legislature could rationally determine that decisions of ditch commissioners should be given more deference; issue of takings, vagueness, or due process not reached in this interlocutory appeal reviewing the decision of the district court, which decided only the two issues of standard of review and equal protection.
Marchand v. Marchand, CA 26,558 (Kennedy) Jun 27, 2007, aff’d in part and rev’d in part, SC 30,608 (Bosson) Oct 14, 2008
Although the Air Stabilization Act, enacted after the events of September 11, provides that the determination of the special master shall be final and not subject to appeal, that applies only to the gross award and not to the distribution of the award because the Act provides that it shall be distributed in accordance with the law of the decedent’s domicile and any court rulings therein; however, special master’s award of $100,000 each in non-economic damages to decedent’s spouse and dependent stepson were not reviewable under the Act because they are expressly provided for in the Act in those terms; with regard to non-economic loss to the estate, the $250,000 provided for in the Act was properly distributed 3/4 to the wife and 1/4 to the natural son in accordance with intestate succession law; with regard to the remainder of the award, which was economic loss, trial court erred in distributing it to wife as community property because it is to be distributed in accordance with wrongful death law; no evidence supported fraud, malfeasance, or other claims by natural son against wife.
Rev’d to the extent that the COA took collateral offsets off the entire award and then distributed the award from that point on, whereas the SC holds that the award should be divided up and then collateral offsets subtracted (which, as a practical matter, means that wife gets nothing in economic losses because she had so many collateral offsets) and aff’d as to other issues.
|