Womack v. Regents of the University of New Mexico

New Mexico Supreme Court

Womack v. Regents of the University of New Mexico

483 P.2d 934, 82 N.M. 460

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedApril 12, 1971

Docket9154

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 483 P.2d 934 (Womack v. Regents of the University of New Mexico) 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

Womack v. Regents of the University of New Mexico, 483 P.2d 934, 82 N.M. 460 (N.M. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the relator from an order dismissing his application for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements in the exercise of their official duties as Regents of the University of New Mexico. The claimed basis for his right of action is that he is a resident taxpayer. Relator is mistaken in this regard. The University of New Mexico is a creature of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Art. XII, § 13, augmented by statute, § 73-25-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, and the respondents owe their duties to the State of New Mexico, not to a private person. This being so, it follows that relator, though a taxpayer, has no standing to enforce by mandamus a duty owing to the public. State ex rel. Naramore v. Hensley, 53 N.M. 308, 207 P.2d 529. See 52 Am.Jur.2d, Mandamus, § 391.

This is not to say that a private person may not move for mandamus to enforce a public duty not due to the State. State ex rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque, 31 N.M. 576, 249 P. 242.

We conclude that appellant was without standing to enforce mandamus. The order should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and STEPHENSON, JJ., concur in result.

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

OPINION

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the relator from an order dismissing his application for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements in the exercise of their official duties as Regents of the University of New Mexico. The claimed basis for his right of action is that he is a resident taxpayer. Relator is mistaken in this regard. The University of New Mexico is a creature of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Art. XII, § 13, augmented by statute, § 73-25-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, and the respondents owe their duties to the State of New Mexico, not to a private person. This being so, it follows that relator, though a taxpayer, has no standing to enforce by mandamus a duty owing to the public. State ex rel. Naramore v. Hensley, 53 N.M. 308, 207 P.2d 529. See 52 Am.Jur.2d, Mandamus, § 391.

This is not to say that a private person may not move for mandamus to enforce a public duty not due to the State. State ex rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque, 31 N.M. 576, 249 P. 242.

We conclude that appellant was without standing to enforce mandamus. The order should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and STEPHENSON, JJ., concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 P.2d 934, 82 N.M. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/womack-v-regents-of-the-university-of-new-mexico-nm-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack