stating that "[c]ommon law sovereign immunity may no longer be interposed as a defense by the [s]tate, or any of its political subdivisions, in tort actions"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[c]ommon law sovereign immunity may no longer be interposed as a defense by the [s]tate, or any of its political subdivisions, in tort actions"
- abolishing common law sovereign immunity prospectively so as to give the legislature opportunity to create a risk management fund and to institute selective statutory sovereign immunity
- eliminating the common law defense of sovereign immunity in tort claims against the government, to which the legislature responded by enacting the TCA
- prospective application of rule declaring military benefits to be community property
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Gallagher v. Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority
88 N.M. 588 , 544 P.2d 1153 , superseded by statute as stated in Sanders v. N.M. Corr. Dep’t, 2024-NMSC-027 , ¶ 12, 562 P.3d 572
The opinion
ORDER ON REHEARING
Defendants-appellees sought and were granted a rehearing limited to the clarification of the Court’s ruling on “modified prospectivity,” as set forth in the original opinion, and secondly, seeking a modification of the opinion so as to apply the ruling prospectively as of July 1, 1976.
The Court having requested briefs and having heard argument on the issues raised at rehearing, by majority vote, is of the opinion that the motion made by the Attorney General is well taken and that the ruling heretofore announced as to prospec-tivity should be modified. The Court accordingly holds that the ruling announced on September 26, 1975, is not to take effect or apply to the case at bar or to any other cause or action in tort against any governmental agency if the alleged tort occurred or occurs prior to July 1, 1976.
Accordingly, the order of the District Court granting the motion to dismiss the State of New Mexico, State Highway Commission and State Highway Department, is affirmed.
This matter is remanded to the District Court of Santa Fe County with instructions to proceed in accordance with the views expressed in this Order on Rehearing.
Entered nunc pro tunc as of January 5, 1976. '
OMAN, C. J., and McMANUS and STEPHENSON, JJ., concur. MONTOYA and SOSA, JJ., dissenting.