{ "id": 1590419, "name": "Eubaldo ZAMORA, Claimant-Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, a body corporate, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Zamora v. Regents of the University of New Mexico", "decision_date": "1955-08-23", "docket_number": "No. 5930", "first_page": "41", "last_page": "43", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 N.M. 41" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "287 P.2d 237" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "57 N.M. 747", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8843531 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/57/0747-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N.M. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1579473 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/52/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 N.M. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1587486 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/58/0391-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 259, "char_count": 3587, "ocr_confidence": 0.693, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.99351890452814e-08, "percentile": 0.3724610971527684 }, "sha256": "ecd479a4c5e60f3f164f64b430b091ce10d59f6371791172092964dacb51ac56", "simhash": "1:bac86ed7b2a2e757", "word_count": 593 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:04.217233+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LUJAN, SADLER, and McGHEE, JJ., concur.", "KIKER, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Eubaldo ZAMORA, Claimant-Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, a body corporate, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COMPTON, Chief Justice.\n' Appellant' brought this action for workmen\u2019s compensation and from a judgment dismissing the action, he appeals. The decisive question is whether the State of New Mexico had consented to be sued.\nOn the 26th day of June, 1951, while appellant was employed by appellee as a motorcycle policeman, he sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The trial court concluded, however, that it was without jurisdiction in the matter since the action was one against the State, to which the State had not consented, and dismissed the action.\nThe pertinent statute, \u00a7 73-25-4, 1953 Comp., reads\n\u201cCorporate powers of board. \u2014 The regents of the university and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate under the name and style-of, the Regents of the University of New Mexico,, with the right, as such, of suing and being sued, or contracting and being contracted with, of making and using a common seal and altering the same at pleasure.\u201d\n(Emphasis ours.)\nAppellant\u2019s contention is that the statute conferring power upon the board of regents to enter into contracts of employment, necessarily imposes upon such board a legal obligation to compensate financially for injuries sustained by their workmen in the course of their employment. He relies solely upon the term \u201cof suing and being sited,-'or contracting and\u2019being contracted with,\u201d as-support for his position.\nThe question has been settled adversely to appellant. Day v. Penitentiary, 58 N.M. 391, 271 P.2d 831. - While that case was a workmen\u2019s compensation case against the State Penitentiary, there is no difference in principle. Both institutions are creatures of the New Mexico Constitution, Art. XIV, \u00a7 1 and Art. XII, \u00a711, and possess strikingly similar corporate powers. The language of \u00a7 42-1-1, 1953 Comp., relating to the powers of the Commissioners of the Penitentiary, \u201cto sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted with\u201d, and the language appearing in \u00a7 73-25-4, supra, relating to the powers of the Board of Regents of the University, \u201cof suing and being sued, or contracting and being contracted with\u201d, are essentially the same and are grants \u00f3f power to sue and be sued only upon such matters as are within the scope of other corporate powers of such institutions. Vigil v. Penitentiary of New Mexico, 52 N.M. 224, 195 P.2d 1014. On the other hand, the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is in derogation of the common law, sui generis; and we find therein no express consent by the State to be sued. \u2022;\nIn Day v. Penitentiary, supra, quoting from Hathaway v. New Mexico State Police, 57 N.M. 747, 263 P.2d 690, 697, we said :\n\u201cThe claimant (appellee) resists the suggestion of amicus curiae that the -judgment should be vacated in so far as it awards recovery against the state. His counsel make the contention that the state has in fact consented to be sued under the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. But we find in the act no express consent by the state to be sued and the consent is not to rest on implication. Unquestionably, the suit as to the employer is one against the state.\u201d\nThe judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nLUJAN, SADLER, and McGHEE, JJ., concur.\nKIKER, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "COMPTON, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lorenzo A. Chavez, Arturo G. Ortega, Irving E. Moore, Albuquerque, for appellant.", "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Mims & Akin, Albuquerque, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "287 P.2d 237\nEubaldo ZAMORA, Claimant-Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, a body corporate, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 5930.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 23, 1955.\nLorenzo A. Chavez, Arturo G. Ortega, Irving E. Moore, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Mims & Akin, Albuquerque, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0041-01", "first_page_order": 65, "last_page_order": 67 }