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Superseded by statute, as recognized in Gallagher v. Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority
88 N.M. 588 , 544 P.2d 1153 , superseded by statute as stated in Sanders v. N.M. Corr.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
SOSA, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion that the ruling made in this case should not take effect until July 1, 1976. I feel that to deprive the parties who were responsible for the abolishment of the antiquated and anachronistic doctrine of sovereign immunity of having their day in court is like leaving a grieving widow at the grave of her deceased husband, killed through someone’s negligence, without a cause of action or a remedy. I think this ruling is harsh and unjust. I would have made the ruling applicable to the case at bar and all those cases actually filed prior to our decision, which were undisposed. They were filed based on dicta that the doctrine’s demise was near. I would not penalize those that took this court at its word.
The main reason for the abolishment of sovereign immunity was that it created an injustice in the law. I feel that the majority ruling making the ruling in the case effective beginning July 1, 1976, creates another injustice.
I respectfully dissent from the order on rehearing for the above stated reasons.