Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Village of Jemez Springs, Inc.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided July 24, 1992No. 12385Published

1ConcurrenceHartz, Judge

(Specially Concurring).

I concur in the result.

I agree with the majority that the proper respondent in a petition for review under NMSA 1978, Section 3-21-9, was the Village of Jemez Springs. The petition in this case therefore conferred jurisdiction on the district court. See Mitchell v. City of Santa Fe, 99 N.M. 505, 660 P.2d 595 (1983).

From that point on I part company with the majority. The majority opinion seems to say that (1) the applicant for a variance is an indispensable or necessary party to the district court review proceeding and should be joined in the proceeding prior to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 283 v. ScofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. C.E. Alexander & Sons, Inc. v. DEC International, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Leventhal v. MichaelisNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Town of Bethlehem v. TuckerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
  5. Mitchell v. City of Santa FeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API