Sumner & Molesworth v. Zimmerman

420 P.2d 133, 77 N.M. 148
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 14, 1966
DocketNo. 8224
StatusPublished

This text of 420 P.2d 133 (Sumner & Molesworth v. Zimmerman) 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
Sumner & Molesworth v. Zimmerman, 420 P.2d 133, 77 N.M. 148 (N.M. 1966).

Opinion

OPINION

MOISE, Justice.

Except that in Sitta v. Zinn, 77 N.M. 146, 420 P.2d 131, decided this day, a writ of mandamus and prohibition was sought, whereás here petitioners seek only a writ of mandamus, the issues and controlling facts presented are identical. The two cases were argued at the same time.

Judge W. T. Scoggin, the original respondent herein, having retired, the Honorable George Zimmerman, Judge of the Third Judicial District, was substituted as respondent in his stead.

For the reasons stated in Sitta v. Zinn, supra, the alternative writ heretofore issued is made permanent.

It is so ordered.

CARMODY, C. J., and CHAVEZ, NOBLE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sitta v. Zinn
420 P.2d 131 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
420 P.2d 133, 77 N.M. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sumner-molesworth-v-zimmerman-nm-1966.