Court Opinion

ID: 9792355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:27:44.98758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:42.161186
License: Public Domain

WATSON, Justice (dissenting).. I do not believe this case .presents an ’ exigency of such an extreme nature as to justify the interposition of our. extraordinary power of superintending, control. State ex rel. Meyers Co. v. Reynolds, 22 N.M. 473, 164 P. 830 (1917). If respondent" erred, it was in favor of the juveniles',’-not against them. No irreparable mischief, great, extraordinary, or exceptional*. hardship, costly delay, and unusual burd'erife of expense will result if we do not:grant1 -'the.1 writ, but well might if we do. See State ex rel. Oil Conservation Commission v. Brand, 65 N.M. 384, 389, 338 P.2d 113 (1959). The other ground for the issuance of the writ- is that the remedy of appeal is inadequate.' If the State has no appeal in these matters,' we should not use the writ to grant it one, ■ nor should we use the writ for advisory opinions or piecemeal reviews. State ex rel. Anaya v. Scarborough, 75 N.M. 702, 410 P.2d 732 (1966). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.