# Hicks v. State

> New Mexico Supreme Court · January 19, 1976 · 88 N.M. 588

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603952

## Case

- **Full name:** Ron E. HICKS, Personal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of Beverly Jan Hicks, Deceased, and Robin E. Hicks, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Mexico, State Highway Commission, State Highway Department, State Highway Engineer, DeBaca County and the DeBaca County Commission, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 19, 1976
- **Citations:** 88 N.M. 588; 544 P.2d 1153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sosa
- **Judges:** McManus, Stephenson, Oman, Montoya, Sosa
- **Cited by:** 133 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Gallagher v. Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603952

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9603952. Public record. Not legal advice.