City of Albuquerque v. State of New Mexico Municipal Boundary Commission

131 N.M. 665 (2002)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

City of Albuquerque v. State of New Mexico Municipal Boundary Commission

New Mexico Court of Appeals
131 N.M. 665 (2002)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The New Mexico legislature established the New Mexico Municipal Boundary Commission (commission) (defendant) as an independent board with the authority to hear petitions from both municipalities seeking to annex new territory and landowners seeking to be annexed by a municipality. Regarding petitions from landowners, as required by statute, the commission held public hearings to determine whether the territory proposed to be annexed was contiguous to the municipality and whether it “may be provided with municipal services.” The annexation had to be approved if these two requirements were met. West Tijeras Canyon Limited (West Tijeras) (defendant) owned land that was contiguous to the border of the City of Albuquerque (plaintiff) and sought annexation into the city mainly to gain access to water and sewer services. West Tijeras first requested that the Albuquerque City Council (council) approve annexation of its land, which the council denied. Subsequently, West Tijeras filed a petition with the commission for annexation. The commission held a hearing on the petition in which the city expressed its opposition. The commission interpreted the requirement that the land “may be provided with municipal services” to mean simply that the city was capable of providing services to the land. The city contended that the forced annexation would put an undue burden on its already strained services, conflict with the county comprehensive plan’s policy for rural areas, and conflict with the city’s infill policy promoting development within existing infrastructure. The commission voted in favor of annexation. The city appealed to the district court, which overturned the annexation. West Tijeras and the commission appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pickard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 830,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership