Court Opinion

ID: 9551574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:55:39.29887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:12.645650
License: Public Domain

OMAN, Justice (dissenting). I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. I agree with neither the result reached nor with the reasoning and authority advanced in support of that result. In my opinion the Court of Appeals applied the correct rule of construction and reached the correct result. I am unable to find the answer to the construction question here presented in our opinion in State ex rel. v. Romero, 19 N. M. 1, 140 P. 1069 (1914), upon which the majority rely. In addition to Saiz v. City of Albuquerque, 82 N.M. 746, 487 P.2d 174 (Ct.App.1971), in which the precise question here presented was correctly decided, our decisions in the following cases clearly compel an affirmance of the Court of Appeals: State v. Lujan, 76 N.M. 111, 412 P.2d 405 (1966); State v. Melendrez, 49 N.M. 181, 159 P.2d 768 (1945); Rader v. Rhodes, 48 N.M. 511, 153 P.2d 516 (1944); Waltom v. City of Portales, 42 N.M. 433, 81 P.2d 58 (1938); State v. Blevins, 40 N. M. 367, 60 P.2d 208 (1936); State ex rel. Armijo, Dist. Atty., v. Romero, 32 N.M. 178, 253 P. 20 (1927). As observed in the majority opinion, our sole concern in this case is one of statutory construction. In view of this, I fail to understand the purpose or the propriety of the discussion concerning the abolishment of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. I would quash the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently granted. The majority feel otherwise. Therefore, I dissent.