North v. PUBLIC SERV. CO., ETC.

608 P.2d 1128, 94 N.M. 246
CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 14, 1980
Docket3983
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 608 P.2d 1128 (North v. PUBLIC SERV. CO., ETC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
North v. PUBLIC SERV. CO., ETC., 608 P.2d 1128, 94 N.M. 246 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinions

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Plaintiff sued defendant in trespass for compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff appeals. We reverse.

Plaintiff alleged in two counts that he was the owner of parcel # 24 of the Plat of Forest Meadow Ranch in Bernalillo County, and intended to use the land as a secluded homesite; that steps had been taken toward that purpose; that during the month of November or December of 1977, defendant negligently or intentionally entered onto plaintiff’s land unlawfully and without authority; that there were no easements for the benefit or use of defendant; that defendant bulldozed roads along two adjacent sides of plaintiff’s property causing great and permanent damage to plaintiff’s real estate and personal property, caused the destruction of plaintiff’s scenic view and substantially interfered with plaintiff’s intended beneficial use; that defendant also bulldozed a third road diagonally across plaintiff’s property for purposes known only to defendant, but entirely unrelated and/or unnecessary to the provision of electric power to plaintiff’s or any other properties; that defendant’s acts were performed in a wilful and reckless manner in total disregard of plaintiff’s rights.

Based upon these allegations, plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Every unauthorized entry upon the land of another is a trespass which entitles the owner to a verdict for some damages. Brazerol v. Hudson, 262 Md. 269, 277 A.2d 585 (1971); Restatement of Torts (2d), § 158 (1965); Miller v. Carnation Company, 33 Colo.App. 62, 516 P.2d 661 (1973); Keziah v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, 272 N.C. 299, 158 S.E.2d 539 (1968); Riddle Quarries v. Thompson, 177 Kan. 307, 279 P.2d 266 (1955); 87 C.J.S. Trespass § 12 (1954). It is a common-law action called Trespass quare clasum fregit, Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1675 (Rev. 4th Ed. 1968).

Plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim for relief in trespass together with the right to punitive damages. Miller, supra.

On January 23, 1979, plaintiff filed his notice of appeal. On February 6, 1979, defendant filed a motion to enlarge the record to include Cause No. CV-78-07,779 entitled Public Service Company of New Mexico v. North and the Kornaks, filed November 28, 1978, wherein Public Service Company sought to acquire an easement. The trial court ordered the court clerk to make a copy of the petition and place a copy in this case. The order stated:

. In granting this Order, it is not the intention of this Court to say that the evidence in said Petition is relevant to any appellate proceeding nor does this Court intend to enlarge or extend any issue that the appellate court may wish to consider.

When an appeal has been taken, the trial court loses jurisdiction except for the purppse of perfecting the appeal to this Court or passing upon a pending motion directed to the judgment. Mirabal v. Robert E. McKee General Contractor, Inc., 74 N.M. 455, 394 P.2d 851 (1964); Veale v. Eavenson, 52 N.M. 102, 192 P.2d 312 (1948).

On the basis of the petition filed, defendant now claims that “the plaintiff’s remedy of inverse condemnation is exclusive.” We reject defendant’s position on this appeal. We will not take judicial notice of proceedings in the lower court. Richardson Ford Sales v. Cummins, 74 N.M. 271, 393 P.2d 11 (1964).

The only issue before this Court is whether plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim for relief. It does.

Reversed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WALTERS, J., specially concurring. HERNANDEZ, J., dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richard v. Marathon Petroleum Corp.
New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2025
SWEPI, LP v. Mora County
81 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. New Mexico, 2015)
Kerns v. Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo County
707 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. New Mexico, 2010)
Eden v. Voss
105 F. App'x 234 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)
State v. Tower
2002 NMCA 109 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2002)
Townsend v. State Ex Rel. State Highway Department
871 P.2d 958 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1994)
Montes v. Gallegos
812 F. Supp. 1165 (D. New Mexico, 1992)
North v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico
640 P.2d 512 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1982)
North v. PUBLIC SERV. CO., ETC.
608 P.2d 1128 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 P.2d 1128, 94 N.M. 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-v-public-serv-co-etc-nmctapp-1980.