Legal Opinion
STATE TAXATION & REVENUE DEPT. v. Bargas
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided November 9, 2000No. 20,236PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
{1} Joseph Bargas’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to the Implied Consent Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 66-8-105 to -112 (1978, as amended through 1993) (the Act). The district court reversed, holding that the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) did not hold the revocation hearing within ninety days as required by the Act. MVD appeals, arguing Bargas had waived the time limit. We hold that the ninety-day time limit of the Act is mandatory and cannot be waived. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{2} Bargas was arrested for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Morningstar Water Users Ass'n v. New Mexico Public Utility CommissionNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. StrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
- State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. KennedyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. BishopNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1992
- State v. SuazoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Department Ex Rel. City of Santa FeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2005
- Maso v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATIONNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2004
- Erica, Inc. v. New Mexico Regulation & Licensing DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
- Glynn v. NM Taxation & Revenue Dept.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011
- Dixon v. State of New Mexico Taxation & Revenue DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.