Legal Opinion

Roe v. State Ex Rel. State Highway Department

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1985No. 15263PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FEDERICI, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs-appellants, David and Sheila Roe (Roes), filed this action in the District Court of Chaves County in inverse condemnation to recover damages, including reasonable attorney fees and expenses, from defendants-appellees, the New Mexico State Highway Department (SHD), the New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands (Commissioner) and Kent Nowlin Construction Company. Buena Vida, Inc. and United Continental New Mexico, Inc., also plaintiffs-appellants, joined the Roes in the suit, seeking damages for partial condemnation of their subdivision, which lies…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. State Ex Rel. Otto v. FieldNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Burguete v. Del CurtoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1945
  4. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. TrujilloNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Burris v. State Ex Rel. State Highway CommissionNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1975

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Norken Corp. v. McGahanAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Bogle Farms, Inc. v. BacaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Burkey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
  4. Bogle Farms, Inc. v. BacaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Prather v. LyonsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API