Daugherty v. City of Carlsbad
New Mexico Court of Appeals
905 P.2d 1120 (1995)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Richard Forrest and others (defendants) filed a petition to annex their 141 acres of land (the Forrest property) to the City of Carlsbad (defendant). The Forrest property was not contiguous with the city as the state’s annexation statute required. As a result, Forrest included in the petition a 23-acre tract of land owned by Daugherty and others (plaintiffs) that linked the Forrest property with the city. The annexation statute required signatures of only a majority of owners of the acres in the land to be annexed. The owners of the Forrest property constituted such a majority even when the plaintiffs’ land was taken into account. The city approved the annexation. Daugherty opposed the annexation and appealed the decision in court. Daugherty filed affidavits of other owners of the added tract stating that the annexation of the tract served no purpose. All parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that there were no issues of fact and only one issue of law: whether the annexed tract was contiguous to the city under the annexation statute. The trial court found that including Daugherty’s land made the annexed land contiguous. The trial court thus granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. Daugherty appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
Dissent (Hartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.