{
  "id": 1571059,
  "name": "Betty Sue MATA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vincent J. MONTOYA, Director, Department of Finance and Administration, State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mata v. Montoya",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 11317",
  "first_page": "20",
  "last_page": "22",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 20"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "569 P.2d 946"
    }
  ],
  "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": "54 N.M. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582017
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/54/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.M. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2715689
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/67/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.M. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2850952
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/70/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N.M. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2854852
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/72/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.M. 7",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5376356
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/75/0007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.M. 780",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5374530
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/75/0780-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5325626
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5364967
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2832094
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 P. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.M. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841607
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/30/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773571
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0134-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 468,
    "char_count": 7309,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.341335679714317e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4404218160981586
    },
    "sha256": "0bc3f35e51dea976f9e7d2979b7fd017c1872a0eb8dab831e02da46e30300738",
    "simhash": "1:b1c54b32a4bf1d62",
    "word_count": 1180
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SOSA and EASLEY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Betty Sue MATA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vincent J. MONTOYA, Director, Department of Finance and Administration, State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nMcMANUS, Chief Justice.\nThe Otero County Treasurer was suspended from that office by the Director of the Department of Finance and Administration. After an administrative hearing, the suspension was continued.\nA petition was filed in the District Court of Otero County requesting the director to show cause why the treasurer should not be reinstated. The matter was tried before the district court without a jury and the petition and order to show cause were dismissed. The treasurer appeals.\nThe treasurer objected to the district court conducting a trial de novo in response to the petition for an order to show cause pursuant to \u00a7 5-3-37.7, N.M.S. A.1953 [2d Repl.Vol. 2, pt. 1, 1974]. She contends that the district court should have limited its scope to reviewing the action taken by the director at the administrative hearing to determine whether the director\u2019s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent, or not supported by substantial evidence. This is generally the applicable standard for reviewing administrative decisions. See Keller v. City of Albuquerque, 85 N.M. 134, 509 P.2d 1329 (1973) which lists the majority of such cases. Those cases dealt with statutes that granted the respondent the right to appeal the decision made by an administrative agency and have the district court review the issues. In such cases the district court functioned as an appellate court, i. e, not as a fact-finder but as an examiner which corrects errors made in the previous hearings.\nPetitioner, however, misapprehends the nature of the proceeding that was held before the district court. The statute at hand, \u00a7 5-3-37.7, supra, states:\nIf after hearing before the director of the department of finance and administration such suspension is continued, the person suspended shall have the right upon petition to a summary order from the district court of the county where he was serving as an official directed to the director of the department of finance and administration requiring the director to show cause why such official should not be reinstated, and if the director does not show reasonable cause for the suspension of the official, it shall forthwith direct that such official be reinstated.\nThere is no mention of an appeal from a prior decision or a review of the agency\u2019s action. This statute calls for an original proceeding whereby the burden is on the department of finance and administration to justify its actions. The petition to show cause why the reinstatement should not issue reverses the general rule whereby the decision is deemed correct until proven otherwise. Here the reinstatement will issue unless the department can prove that the suspension is proper. This kind of a proceeding is highly penal in nature (although it is not a criminal action), State ex rel. Delgado, Sheriff v. Leahy, 30 N.M. 221, 231 P. 197 (1924), therefore the Legislature may have regarded the additional show cause hearing as a necessary protection of a state officer\u2019s rights. The usual cry we hear is \u201cLack of due process!\u201d; now we are confronted with a petitioner who complains of too much \u201cprocess.\u201d In Keller v. City of Albuquerque, supra, this Court held that a statutory provision which called for a jury trial was sufficient authorization to permit a wider scope of review at the district court level than is generally permitted.\nPetitioner\u2019s second contention that the director did not have authority to suspend her from office is without merit. Although State ex rel. Delgado, Sheriff v. Leahy, supra, states that a suspension proceeding is auxiliary to removal, that case dealt with a statute that is substantially different than those at issue. There are two distinct sections now; one concerning removal, the other concerning suspension. Petitioner argues that since \u00a7 5-3-3, supra, (relating to removal) is limited by its terms to \u201cofficers elected by the people\u201d that \u00a7 5-3-37.1 and 37.2 (relating to the suspension section) which define official as \u201cofficer, deputy or employee\u201d can only refer to officers not elected by the people. Such argument is not well taken. Section 1-2-2.1 defines the general word officer to be \u201csalaried public official\u201d unless defined otherwise by the specific section. No mention is made of elected or unelected positions. Section 5-3-3, supra, limits the general definition but \u00a7 5-3-37.1 imposes no such limitation. Since the county treasurer is a salaried public official, the suspension provisions of \u00a7 5-3-37.2, N.M.S.A.1953 [2d Repl. Vol. 2, pt. 1, 1974] are applicable to anyone holding that office. The decision of the district court is therefore affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA and EASLEY, JJ., concur.\n. Grace v. Oil Conservation Commission of New Mexico, 87 N.M. 205, 531 P.2d 939 (1975), \u00a7 65-3-22(b), N.M.S.A.1953 [2d Repl.Vol. 2, pt. 1, 1974], \u201cAny party . . may appeal therefrom to the district court ... by filing a petition for the review of the action of the commission . . . \u201d\nKeller v. City of Albuquerque, 85 N.M. 134, 509 P.2d 1329 (1973), recognized this statute as an exception to the general rule by its very terms. The statute itself, although titled \u201cAppeal\u201d also falls outside this analysis by its specific provision\u00ae.\nSeidenberg v. New Mexico Beard of Medical Exam., 80 N.M. 135, 452 P.2d 469 (1969), \u00a7 67-26-20, N.M.S.A.1953, \u201cUpon the review of any board decision . . . the judge shall sit . . . but no evidence . . . shall be taken . . . \u201d\nHardin v. State Tax Commission, 78 N.M. 477, 432 P.2d 833 (1967), Ch. 152, \u00a7 10 [1955] N.M.Law 302 (repealed 1970), \u201cAny interested person . . . may appeal the same to any district court.\u201d\nS. I. C. Finance\u2014Loans of Menaul, Inc. v. Upton, 75 N.M. 780, 411 P.2d 755 (1966), \u00a7 48-17-52(b), N.M.S.A.1953 [Repl., 1966], \u201cany interested party may apply to the district court of Santa Fe County for a writ of certiorari or review.\u201d\nLlano, Inc. v. Southern Union Gas Company, 75 N.M. 7, 399 P.2d 646 (1964), \u00a7 68-9-1, N.M.S. A. 1953, \u201cAny party . . may file a petition in the district court . . . asking for review of the commission\u2019s final orders.\u201d\nIngram v. Malone Farms, Inc., 72 N.M. 256, 382 P.2d 981 (1963), \u00a7 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953, \u201cAny applicant . . . may take an appeal to the district court.\u201d\nContinental Oil Co. v. Oil Conservation Com'n., 70 N.M. 310, 373 P.2d 809 (1962), \u00a7 65-3-22(b), N.M.S.A.1953, \u201cAny party . . . may appeal ... to the district court.\u201d\nJohnson v. Sanchez, 67 N.M. 41, 351 P.2d 449 (1960), \u00a7 64-13-65, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1955), \u201cAny person \u2022 . . . shall have the right to file a petition . . . for a hearing in the matter in district court,\u201d construed to be an appeal from the order and therefore jurisdiction to review was limited.\nYarbrough v. Montoya, 54 N.M. 91, 214 P.2d 769 (1950), \u00a7 61-516, N.M.S.A.1941, Ch. 87, 1945 N.M.Laws 139, \u201cAny person . . . may appeal therefrom to the district court of Santa Fe County.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McMANUS, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. Thomas Overstreet, Alamogordo, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., J. Michael Francke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Robert M. Doughty II, Dist. Atty., Alamogordo, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "569 P.2d 946\nBetty Sue MATA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vincent J. MONTOYA, Director, Department of Finance and Administration, State of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 11317.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 3, 1977.\nS. Thomas Overstreet, Alamogordo, for petitioner-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., J. Michael Francke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Robert M. Doughty II, Dist. Atty., Alamogordo, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0020-01",
  "first_page_order": 56,
  "last_page_order": 58
}