Irwin S. Moise

The case involved a mayor suing members of a village council for malfeasance in office under state statute, seeking their removal along with invalidation of one member's appointment. The disputes centered on the council's refusal to confirm the mayor's nominees for vacancies and its appointment of another individual over the mayor's objections, as well as related conflicts over police and water superintendent positions. The trial court found the defendants had engaged in a willful scheme to harass the mayor and usurp his powers, ordering their removal. On appeal, the supreme court reversed, holding there was no substantial evidence of malice or conspiracy to support a finding of malfeasance and that removal of elected officials requires strong proof of willful wrongdoing. It also deemed the appointment challenge moot due to expiration of the term and subsequent election of the appointee.

criminal lawprocedureelections

The case involved a default judgment entered against Jerry Dean Brewster and his mother on a promissory note for unpaid attorney fees. Brewster moved to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing improper substituted service (only one copy of the summons and complaint left for both defendants) and lack of consideration for the note because the attorney had been court-appointed and paid by the state for representing him in a criminal matter. The trial court denied the motion to vacate but credited the state fee amount against the judgment. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the service was invalid under Rule 4(e) since a separate copy must be delivered for each defendant when multiple defendants reside at the same abode, as supported by precedent like Chaney v. Reddin, and that the note lacked consideration because the attorney was already obligated to provide the services.

procedurecriminal law

This case concerns a dispute over modification of child custody and visitation orders following a 1967 divorce in which the mother initially received primary custody of the two young children and the father had visitation rights plus support obligations. After the mother planned to remarry and move to California, the father petitioned for full custody or expanded visitation; the trial court instead kept principal custody with the mother, permitted the move, and adjusted visitation to include six-week summer periods plus alternate holidays while requiring the father to pay transportation costs. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the best interests of the children remained the paramount consideration and that the trial court's findings adequately supported continued maternal custody even with the relocation. The court further held that the absence of a bill of exceptions confined review to legal issues arising from the findings and that no reversible error had been shown regarding the modification process or financial allocation.

family law

This case concerned whether Kaiser Steel Corporation could exercise eminent domain under New Mexico statute § 75-1-3 to construct a pipeline across WS Ranch Company's land to convey water for use in Kaiser's coal mine, after Kaiser entered the property without permission or prior condemnation proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment declaring the statute constitutional and holding that inverse condemnation under § 22-9-22 was the landowner's exclusive remedy. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the statute permits any corporation to condemn rights-of-way for conveying water for beneficial uses, that the public-use requirement is satisfied by the nature of the water conveyance rather than the end industrial purpose, and that the inverse condemnation statute provides a complete mechanism for compensation applicable to private condemners. The court noted that Kaiser had the statutory right to condemn and that trespass damages were unavailable once that right was established.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a lawsuit to collect on a promissory note executed for the first year's premium on two life insurance policies, where the defendant claimed the note was void because it was given in exchange for an illegal rebate on the premium in violation of a New Mexico statute making receipt of such rebates a misdemeanor. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the statute's prohibition on rebates did not render the note unenforceable, as excusing payment would permit the defendant to profit from his own criminal act, the statute's penalties are exclusive, and the parties were not in pari delicto so as to leave them where found. The court also noted that the insurance company could not have avoided its own policy obligations based on the same illegality.

business & regulatorycriminal law

In State v. Tapia, the defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, raising two claims of trial court error. He first contended that voluntary intoxication severe enough to prevent formation of a specific intent to kill should reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter, but the court rejected this because New Mexico law does not require a specific intent to kill for second-degree murder and thus intoxication provides no defense to that charge. On the second claim, the defendant argued it was improper to try him in the same court term in which the charges arose under certain statutes governing bonds, recognizances, and filings, but the court held those provisions did not limit when trial could occur and noted the defendant showed no prejudice from the timing. The court affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure