AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioners-Appellants sought a writ of mandamus against the Roswell Municipal Court, challenging the court's interpretation of Rule 8-602(A)(3) NMRA regarding the issuance of subpoenas. The dispute centered on whether the court was required to provide the physical subpoena form to litigants requesting it or if litigants must submit a blank form to be signed and thereby "issued" by the court (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that Rule 8-602(A)(3) NMRA mandates the Municipal Court to provide the physical subpoena form itself to litigants upon request (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellee and Parties In Interest-Appellees: Contended that litigants must provide the blank subpoena form, which the court will then sign to "issue" it (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the term "issue" in Rule 8-602(A)(3) NMRA requires the Municipal Court to provide the physical subpoena form to litigants or if litigants must submit a blank form for the court to sign and thereby "issue."

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the provision of the physical piece of paper making up the subpoena is not contemplated by Rule 8-602(A)(3) NMRA (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court conducted a de novo review of the meaning of "issue" in Rule 8-602(A)(3) NMRA, considering the rule's language, context, and common usage of the term. The Court found that "issue" refers to the act of imbuing the subpoena form with official authority rather than the physical provision of the form itself. This interpretation aligns with the general practice in litigation where litigants, not courts, provide their own materials. The Court also considered the structure and language of similar rules, concluding that the absence of a specific requirement for submission in Rule 8-602(A)(3) does not imply that courts cannot require submission of a blank form by litigants. The Court's analysis was informed by the broader context of the rule within the system of litigation and the purposes of a subpoena, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision (paras 3-9).