Legal Opinion

Hatch v. Keehan

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1956No. 6022PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

Appellant, plaintiff below, brought this action to require restoration by appellee of public moneys allegedly paid her for personal services not rendered and to enjoin further receipt by her of public funds. The cause was tried to the court, and from an adverse judgment, appellant prosecutes this appeal to review alleged errors.

The applicable statutes, § 40-8-12 and § 40-8-13, 1953 Comp., read:

“40-8-12. Except in the case of payments covering lawful vacation periods and absences from employment because of sickness, any person who receives payment, or any person who…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ross v. Real Estate Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
  2. Yates v. VailNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
  3. State Ex Rel. Hannett v. District Court Ex Rel. Santa Fe CountyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Bd. Com. Bern. Co. v. Coors, Co. Ch.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1925
  5. State Ex Rel. Hughes v. McNabbNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re Hickok's WillNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1956
  2. New Mexico Bus Sales v. MichaelNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Toledo Society for Crippled Children v. Toledo Trust Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Peterson v. NeubauerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API