Any party who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is adversely affected by a final order or decision in an adjudicatory proceeding may appeal pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
History: 1953 Comp., § 4-32-16, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 252, § 16; 1998, ch. 55, § 23; 1999, ch. 265, § 23.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For statutory appeals to the district courts, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.
For appeal of final decisions by agencies to district court, see 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, substituted "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1".
The 1998 amendment, effective September 1, 1998, rewrote this section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
Finality. — The determination of finality must be based on pragmatic consideration of the matters at issue and analysis of whether the administrative body has in fact finally resolved the issues. The court must determine whether certain issues will be revisited by the agency in its subsequent hearings and thus should be reserved for its initial discretionary determination; whether further fact finding will elicit more evidence illuminating the issues, whether further agency decisions may moot some of the contentions, and whether the parties will suffer imminently the effects of the final order. The ultimate question, however, is whether agency action is sufficiently final or definitive so that there is no judicial interest in awaiting a more concrete formulation of the issues. N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (In re Ratemaking Methodology), 1991-NMSC-018, 111 N.M. 622, 808 P.2d 592.
An administrative order that is required to be submitted to a superior for approval is not a final order for purposes of review. Harris v. Revenue Div. of Taxation and Revenue Dep't, 1987-NMCA-034, 105 N.M. 721, 737 P.2d 80.
Only those agencies specifically placed by law under Administrative Procedures Act are subject to its provisions. Since public employees retirement board had not been placed under the act, nor subjected to its provisions, court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to review decisions of that agency. Mayer v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 1970-NMCA-005, 81 N.M. 64, 463 P.2d 40.
Court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of commissioner of revenue under the Administrative Procedures Act (Section 12-8-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.), but does have jurisdiction to review such decisions under Section 7-1-25 NMSA 1978 of the Tax Administration Act. Westland Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 1971-NMCA-083, 83 N.M. 29, 487 P.2d 1099, cert. denied, 83 N.M. 22, 487 P.2d 1092.
Section not applicable to determinations of labor commissioner. — This section does not allow a judicial appeal of determinations of the labor commissioner, since the Administrative Procedures Act applies only to an agency made subject to the act by agency rule or regulation, if permitted by law, or an agency specifically placed by law under the act, and the labor commissioner is not such an agency. Eastern Indem. Co. of Md. v. Heller, 1984-NMCA-125, 102 N.M. 144, 692 P.2d 530.
Law reviews. — For article, "How to Stand Still Without Really Trying: A Critique of the New Mexico Administrative Procedures Act," see 10 Nat. Resources J. 840 (1970).
For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Administrative Law," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1981).
For article, "Habeas Corpus in New Mexico," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 291 (1981).
For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to administrative law, see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1982).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 415 et seq.
Exclusion or inclusion of terminal Sunday or holiday in computing time for taking or perfecting appellate review, 61 A.L.R.2d 482.
Applicability of stare decisis doctrine to decisions of administrative agencies, 79 A.L.R.2d 1126.
73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure §§ 172 to 201.