Court Opinion

ID: 9618257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:09:41.300546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:26.839237
License: Public Domain

ALARID, Judge, dissenting. I believe that the opinion of the majority expands, beyond the contemplation of the legislature, the authority given the Highway Department over the public highways of this state. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would adopt the reasoning of the advisory committee. The advisory committee finds persuasive, as I do, the distinction made by defendants between utilities, both public and private, and private corporations which claim no public purpose. It is undisputed that plaintiff corporation is not a public utility, is not the holder of a public utility franchise, has no duty to serve the public, its pipeline is not subject to administrative regulation as to who can use it, and its use is solely for its own corporate projects. I don’t believe that these are idle distinctions, nor do I believe that this view expands the statute or is contrary to the caselaw. In fact, Hall v. Lea County Elec. Corp., 78 N.M. 792, 438 P.2d 632 (1968), which the majority cites as controlling authority, involves a rural electric cooperative utility. For these reasons, I would reverse the trial court and remand for trial.