{ "id": 1577363, "name": "In the Matter of the Application of ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION for a Supplemental Well, ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION, Applicant-Appellant, v. C. S. CATTLE COMPANY, Springer Ditch Company and The City of Springer, Protestants-Appellees, v. S. E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, Party in Interest-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Angel Fire Corp. v. C. S. Cattle Co.", "decision_date": "1981-09-22", "docket_number": "No. 13581", "first_page": "651", "last_page": "653", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "96 N.M. 651" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "634 P.2d 202" } ], "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": "40 N.M. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8842156 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/40/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 L.Ed.2d 404", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 S.Ct. 2237", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "436 U.S. 906", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1490145, 1490242, 1490244, 1490344, 1490216, 1490602, 1490575, 1490355, 1490329, 1490586 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/436/0906-10", "/us/436/0906-09", "/us/436/0906-07", "/us/436/0906-03", "/us/436/0906-06", "/us/436/0906-01", "/us/436/0906-02", "/us/436/0906-04", "/us/436/0906-05", "/us/436/0906-08" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.M. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2863938 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/89/0307-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 330, "char_count": 4900, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.7591893846237163e-07, "percentile": 0.8334258097672876 }, "sha256": "681c6ab633cfadde644c3fa576fa19efa20394b86d9ba235a224042588832ea3", "simhash": "1:174489b648800c92", "word_count": 804 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:27.930698+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of the Application of ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION for a Supplemental Well, ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION, Applicant-Appellant, v. C. S. CATTLE COMPANY, Springer Ditch Company and The City of Springer, Protestants-Appellees, v. S. E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, Party in Interest-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPAYNE, Justice.\nThis appeal requires a determination of the proper procedure for appeal to the district courts from actions taken by the State Engineer. \u00a7 72-7-1, N.M.S.A. 1978.\nThe relevant events transpired as follows: September 8, 1978 \u2014 Appellant Angel Fire applied for a supplemental water well.\nSeptember 22, 1980 \u2014 The State Engineer issued findings and an order favorable to Angel Fire.\nOctober 1, 1980 \u2014 Angel Fire petitioned to modify the order.\nOctober 6, 1980 \u2014 C. S. Cattle Co. (C. S.) filed a Notice of Appeal in district court and mailed copies to Angel Fire\u2019s counsel.\nOctober 28, 1980 \u2014 The State Engineer issued a second order in the case, denying all significant modifications requested by Angel Fire but correcting an inconsequential error found in the September 22 order.\nOctober 30, 1980 \u2014 C. S. received a copy of the State Engineer\u2019s modification order of October 28, 1980.\nOctober 30, 1980 \u2014 Angel Fire was personally served with notice of C. S.\u2019s appeal from the September 22 order.\nDecember 31, 1980 \u2014 Angel Fire moved to dismiss C. S.\u2019s appeal on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction because Angel Fire had not been personally served within thirty days after the September 22 decision.\nMarch 10, 1981 \u2014 The district court denied Angel Fire\u2019s motion to dismiss and authorized an interlocutory appeal.\nAngel Fire appeals the district court\u2019s denial of its motion to dismiss.\nSection 72-12-10, N.M.S.A. 1978, states that \u201c[t]he decision of the state engineer shall be final in all cases unless appeal be taken to the district court within thirty days after his decision as provided by \u00a7 72-7-1 N.M.S.A. 1978.\u201d Section 72-7-1, N.M.S.A. 1978, states:\nA.Any applicant or other party dissatisfied with any decision, act or refusal to act of the state engineer may appeal to the district court. . . .\nB. Appeals to the district court shall be taken by serving a notice of appeal upon the state engineer and all parties interested within thirty days after receipt by certified mail of notice of the decision, act or refusal to act. If an appeal is not timely taken, the action of the state engineer is conclusive.\nC. The notice of appeal may be served in the same manner as a summons in civil actions brought before the district court or by publication is [in] some newspaper. . . once a week for four consecutive weeks. The last publication shall be at least twenty days prior to the date the appeal may be heard. Proof of service of the notice of appeal shall be made in the same manner as in actions brought in the district court and shall be filed in the district court within thirty days after service is complete.\nThe judiciary determines rules of procedure for cases within the judicial system, Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976) cert. denied, 436 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 2237, 56 L.Ed.2d 404 (1978); State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 60 P.2d 646 (1936), pursuant to its authority under the separation of powers doctrine N.M. Const., Art. Ill, \u00a7 1. However, the statute here establishes an administrative procedure for taking a case or controversy out of the administrative framework into the judicial system for review. Jurisdiction of the matters in dispute does, not lie in the courts until the statutorily required administrative procedures are fully complied with. The courts have no authority to alter the statutory scheme, cumbersome as it may be. Accordingly, we reverse.\nThe statutory requirements are clear. \u201c[A]ny decision, act or refusal to act of the state engineer\u201d may be appealed. \u00a7 72-7-1. Thus, there is no requirement of finality. In the posture of the present case, C. S. is therefore required to appeal separately from the September 22 order and the October 28 modification order if it contests each.\nThe statute requires service on all interested parties within thirty days. Thus, service on counsel will not suffice if service is not also made on the actual parties to the litigation. C. S.\u2019s attempted appeal fails since no service was made upon Angel Fire until after the thirty-day period expired.\nThe remaining provisions are not before this Court.\nThe decision of the district court is reversed. The cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal.\nBE IT SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PAYNE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Montgomery & Andrews, John B. Draper, Santa Fe, for applicant-appellant.", "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., G. Emlen Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant, State Engineer.", "Paul A. Kastler, Raton, for protestantsappellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "634 P.2d 202\nIn the Matter of the Application of ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION for a Supplemental Well, ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION, Applicant-Appellant, v. C. S. CATTLE COMPANY, Springer Ditch Company and The City of Springer, Protestants-Appellees, v. S. E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, Party in Interest-Appellant.\nNo. 13581.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 22, 1981.\nMontgomery & Andrews, John B. Draper, Santa Fe, for applicant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., G. Emlen Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant, State Engineer.\nPaul A. Kastler, Raton, for protestantsappellees." }, "file_name": "0651-01", "first_page_order": 679, "last_page_order": 681 }