Legal Opinion

Arnold v. State

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1944No. 4866PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SADLER, Chief Justice.

The decisive question, if answered negatively, is whether 1941 Comp. § 25-603 constitutes a general consent on the part of the state to be sued under the provisions of the Declaratory Judgments Act, L.1935, c. 143. Our former decision in Taos County Board of Education v. Sedillo, 44 N.M. 300, 101 P.2d 1027, supplies a negative answer to the question and we adhere to that ■decision on this appeal.

The plaintiff, who is appellee before this court, sued the state, securing service on the Governor and the Attorney General pursuant to Trial Court Rule 57(b), 1941 Comp. §…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kawananakoa v. PolyblankSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. Langford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  3. Dougherty v. VidalNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Taos County Board of Education v. SedilloNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
  5. American Trust & Savings Bank v. ScobeeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Hicks v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Sangre De Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa FeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Vigil v. Penitentiary of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Harriett v. LuskNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
  5. In Re Bogert's WillNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958

15 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