State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co.

New Mexico Supreme Court

State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co.

334 P.2d 1118, 65 N.M. 217

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1959

Docket6425, 6427

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 334 P.2d 1118 (State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Highway Commission v. Southern Union Gas Co., 334 P.2d 1118, 65 N.M. 217 (N.M. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

McGHEE, Justice.

The appellee has filed a motion asking permission to file a second motion for rehearing in which it attacks the last sentence of Section 1(A) of Chapter 237, Laws of 1957, § 55-7-18, N.M.S.A.1953, 1957 Pocket Supp. on the ground that it is unconstitutional because there is no provision for a hearing before the State Highway Engineer, and then before a court in the event of dissatisfaction on the part of the utility with the decision of the engineer. The sentence reads:

“In all cases where the widening, improvement, reconstruction, or maintenance of the highway shall necessitate the relocation of pole lines, pipelines, conduit, wires, cables and other equipment and appliances of a utility (hereinafter called ‘facilities’) located over, under, upon, along or adjacent to such highway right-of-way, the owner thereof shall within thirty (30) days after receiving notice in writing from the state highway engineer of the necessity of such relocation proceed to make the relocation in conformity with the reasonable regulations of the state highway engineer.”

The constitutionality of this section was not raised below -nor here until permission was sought to file the second motion for rehearing, and will not now be permitted, especially in view of the fact that this provision has been in our laws since the year 1939. See § 55-7-18, N.M.S.A.1953. Also, to allow such filing would be contrary to our long established appellate procedure.

It is ordered, McGITEE and COMPTON, JJ., and GALLEGOS, D. J., concurring, that the motion be and hereby is denied.

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

McGHEE, Justice.

The appellee has filed a motion asking permission to file a second motion for rehearing in which it attacks the last sentence of Section 1(A) of Chapter 237, Laws of 1957, § 55-7-18, N.M.S.A.1953, 1957 Pocket Supp. on the ground that it is unconstitutional because there is no provision for a hearing before the State Highway Engineer, and then before a court in the event of dissatisfaction on the part of the utility with the decision of the engineer. The sentence reads:

“In all cases where the widening, improvement, reconstruction, or maintenance of the highway shall necessitate the relocation of pole lines, pipelines, conduit, wires, cables and other equipment and appliances of a utility (hereinafter called ‘facilities’) located over, under, upon, along or adjacent to such highway right-of-way, the owner thereof shall within thirty (30) days after receiving notice in writing from the state highway engineer of the necessity of such relocation proceed to make the relocation in conformity with the reasonable regulations of the state highway engineer.”

The constitutionality of this section was not raised below -nor here until permission was sought to file the second motion for rehearing, and will not now be permitted, especially in view of the fact that this provision has been in our laws since the year 1939. See § 55-7-18, N.M.S.A.1953. Also, to allow such filing would be contrary to our long established appellate procedure.

It is ordered, McGITEE and COMPTON, JJ., and GALLEGOS, D. J., concurring, that the motion be and hereby is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 P.2d 1118, 65 N.M. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-highway-commission-v-southern-union-gas-co-nm-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack