{ "id": 2765063, "name": "CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Petitioner, v. Mella GARCIA, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "City of Albuquerque v. Garcia", "decision_date": "1973-04-06", "docket_number": "No. 9531", "first_page": "776", "last_page": "779", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 N.M. 776" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "508 P.2d 585" } ], "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": "82 N.M. 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5334891 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.M. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582934 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/55/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N.M. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2717152 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/68/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 N.M. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1554385 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/33/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 U.S. 147", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3499782 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1882, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/107/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 N.M. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1562208 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/47/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2773181 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0168-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 492, "char_count": 7062, "ocr_confidence": 0.63, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.633969099062792e-07, "percentile": 0.8224767158239727 }, "sha256": "6b8de0d227997da4c3e64c4b993a9a1c7c7360e95dc1982453517044739e6bdf", "simhash": "1:9b94baef2e930c97", "word_count": 1189 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:55.751115+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "McMANUS, C. J., and OMAN, MONTOYA and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Petitioner, v. Mella GARCIA, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSTEPHENSON, Justice.\nPlaintiff alleged that she had been negligently injured while a passenger on a city bus driven by Mr. Callahan. On motion by the City, the trial court dismissed as to it on the basis of \u00a7 64-25-9, N.M.S.A.1953. Following compliance with Rule 54(b) [\u00a7 21-1-1 (54) (b), N.M.S.A.1953] plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 84 N.M. 168, 500 P.2d 453 (Ct.App.1972). We granted certiorari and reverse the Court of Appeals.\nThe statute in question is Ch. 192, Laws of 1941, compiled as \u00a7\u00a7 64-25-8 and 9, N. M.S.A.1953. The entire act, including its title, is quoted in the Court of Appeals opinion. The Court of Appeals first held that a portion of \u00a7 64 \u2014 25-9, viz:\n\u201cNo action shall be brought or entertained in any court of this state against the state or any of its institutions, agencies or political subdivisions for injury or damage caused by the operation of such vehicles, but the action for any such injury or damage shall be brought against the person operating such vehicle at the time of the injury or damage. Every policy of insurance upon such vehicles shall contain a provision that the defense of immunity from tort liability because the insured is a governmental agency or an employee of a governmental agency, or because the accident arose out of the performance of a governmental function, shall not be raised against any claim covered by such policy, * :|; * >\u00bb\ngranted total sovereign immunity except for the person operating the vehicle at the time of the injury or damage. From this premise, it held the act unconstitutional on the ground that its title falls short of compliance with the portion of Article IV, \u00a7 16, New Mexico Constitution which states that the subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title.\nBeing unsatisfied with the result and the reasoning on which it rests, we granted certiorari.\nAs to sovereign immunity, that doctrine, insofar as it has been created by courts, seems headed for a deserved repose. Courts and scholars can find little reason for it, and its historical basis is of doubtful validity. This case is not an appropriate \u2022one in which to review or reconsider court-created sovereign immunity because the immunity which the court below held had been created stemmed from an act of the legislature.\nThe Court of Appeals oversimplified the effect of the statute in holding that it created absolute sovereign immunity. Although the court was considering legislature-created immunity, court-created immunity already existed except as to proprietary activities. Barker v. City of Santa Fe, 47 N.M. 85, 136 P.2d 480 (1943). The opinion in Barker had not been handed down when the statute was enacted, but that case merely declared existing law, albeit in a more definitive manner than its predecessors. Even as to torts committed in pursuance of proprietary functions, immunity was not simply created by the statute, although by compliance with it a procedure which amounts to about the same thing is brought about.\nFor purposes of this case, we will accept the premise that immunity was affected by the .statute and in some instances, expanded, and proceed to consider the question of whether Article IV, \u00a7 16 was violated by failure to make mention of it in the title of the act.\nArticle IV, \u00a7 16 has often been considered by this court. No rtseful purpose would be served by reviewing those decisions. We are not disposed to broaden its operation. We approve the guideline stated by the United States Supreme Court in Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 2 S. Ct. 391, 27 L.Ed. 431 (1882):\n\"The objections should be grave, and the conflict between the statute and the constitution palpable, before the judiciary should disregard a legislative enactment upon the sole ground that it embraced more than one object, or if but one object, that it was not sufficiently expressed by the title.\u201d\nWe said in Grant et al. v. State, 33 N.M. 633, 275 P. 95 (1929):\n\u201cA title need not disclose the means and instrumentalities provided in the body of the act for accomplishing its purpose. Provisions reasonably necessary for attaining the object of the act embraced in the title are considered as included in the title. (Citation omitted.)\u201d\nThe title need not set forth details of an enactment.\n\u201cParticulars are to be found in the act, not in the caption.\u201d 1A Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction \u00a7 18.11 (4th ed. 1972).\nPlowever the details of a statute must be germane or related to the subject matter expressed in the title.\n\u201cThis should not cause difficulty, for, 'when the general purpose of the act is declared, the details provided for the accomplishment of that purpose will be regarded as necessary incidents,\u2019 \u201d Id.\nIn City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698 (1960), we said, speaking of the same statute now under consideration, that:\n\u201c * * * [t]he law as adopted was intended under the conditions set forth therein to authorize insurance by municipal corporations * *\nThat statement is hard to dispute and, if true, would seem to establish that the statute\u2019s subject was insurance rather than sovereign immunity.\nOur present inquiry, by the literal terms of Article IV, \u00a7 16, is whether sovereign immunity was the \u201csubject\u201d of the statute in question. It was not. Sovereign immunity was affected only incidentally. This being so, failure to mention it in the title of the statute does not violate Article IV, \u00a7 16. Crosthwait v. White, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477 (1951); Bureau of Revenue v. Dale J. Bellamah Corp., 82 N.M. 13, 474 P.2d 499 (1970).\nThus \u00a7 64-25-9 is not unconstitutional by reason of any violation of Article IV, \u00a7 16.\nWe find nothing to indicate that either the trial court or the Court of Appeals gave consideration to the effect, if any, of \u00a7\u00a7 5-6-18 through 22, N.M.S.A.1953 (Laws 1959, Ch. 333). That act is inconsistent, virtually in its entirety, with \u00a7\u00a7 64-25-8 and 9, supra. Did not the later act repeal the earlier by implication? This question poses some rather knotty problems of construction. The question was neither argued nor briefed, and, as matters stand, we will not answer it here. Since the case must return to the trial court in any event, we wish to make it clear that the trial court is at liberty to consider the effect, if any, of \u00a7\u00a7 5-6-18 through 22, supra, upon \u00a7\u00a7 64-25-8 and 9, supra.\nThe Court of Appeals is reversed. This case is remanded to the District Court of Bernalillo County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nIt is so ordered.\nMcMANUS, C. J., and OMAN, MONTOYA and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEPHENSON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, James C. Ritchie, Stuart S. Keown, Albuquerque, for petitioner.", "Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Frank H. Allen, Jr., Albuquerque, for respondent.", "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State Highway Dept., Santa Fe, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "508 P.2d 585\nCITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Petitioner, v. Mella GARCIA, Respondent.\nNo. 9531.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nApril 6, 1973.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, James C. Ritchie, Stuart S. Keown, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nModrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Frank H. Allen, Jr., Albuquerque, for respondent.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State Highway Dept., Santa Fe, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0776-01", "first_page_order": 932, "last_page_order": 935 }