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 sought to compel the Respondent State Engineer to file their declarations regarding assertions to pre-1907 surface water rights. The district court issued an order quashing an alternative writ of mandamus directed at the State Engineer, which would have required the filing of these declarations (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to issue an alternative writ of mandamus due to a preexisting adjudication to determine Petitioners’ water rights (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellee: Supported the district court's decision, arguing that under New Mexico law, all questions necessary for the adjudication of water rights must be heard and determined in the court where the suit is brought, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to issue an alternative writ of mandanus due to a preexisting adjudication to determine Petitioners’ water rights (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order quashing the alternative writ of mandamus (para 4).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael D. Bustamante and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, the Court of Appeals held that the district court did not err in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. This decision was based on New Mexico law, which stipulates that once a suit has been filed for the determination of a right to use the waters of a stream system, all questions necessary for the adjudication of all water rights must be heard and determined in the court in which the suit is brought. The Court further explained that the State Engineer is not required to file declarations when evidence in the State Engineer’s possession contradicts the documents to be filed. The Court concluded that the district court would have had to assess the State Engineer’s evidence against Petitioners’ declarations to determine whether the State Engineer was required to accept Petitioners’ declarations for filing, an action prohibited by Section 72-4-17 of the NMSA 1978, which aims to have the resolution of all such matters done in a single adjudication (paras 2-4).