Court Opinion

ID: 9607873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:02:49.514962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:41.208291
License: Public Domain

HARRIS L HARTZ, Judge (specially concurring). I agree that we must reverse the district court and remand for consideration of the remaining grounds raised in district court by the Appellees. In particular, I agree with the definition of “contiguity” set forth in Judge Black’s opinion. Also, the record does not support a conclusion that the annexation of the vacant land adjoining the City was a sham or subterfuge to enable the City to annex the commercial property along New Mexico State Road 273. See generally Daugherty v. City of Carlsbad, 120 N.M. 716, 905 P.2d 1120 (App.1995) (Hartz, J., dissenting). It is enough that the record reveals a plausible municipal purpose for annexing the vacant land other than the purpose of achieving contiguity between the City and the commercial property.