Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,258 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Frick v. Veazey - cited by 97 documents

Decision Content

CITY OF SANTA FE EX REL. SANTA FE POLICE DEP'T V. ONE (1) 1988 BLUE CHEVROLET VAN

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

CITY OF SANTA FE ex rel. SANTA
FE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ONE (1) 1988 BLUE CHEVROLET VAN
V.I.N. 1GBEG25H2J7122898 NEW
MEXICO LICENSE NO. NCA302,
Respondent,
and
RAMONA F. TENORIO,
Claimant-Appellee.

NO. 35,760

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

December 15, 2016


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge

COUNSEL

R. Alfred Walker, Assistant City Attorney, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

Ramona F. Tenorio, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellee

JUDGES

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

AUTHOR: LINDA M. VANZI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1}       Petitioner City of Santa Fe ex rel. Santa Fe Police Department appeals from the district court’s judgment ordering Petitioner to return Respondent motor vehicle to Claimant Ramona F. Tenorio, a self-represented litigant, entered on July 7, 2016. On October 20, 2016, this Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to reverse and remand. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of proposed summary reversal and remand. Respondent and Claimant have not filed any memoranda in opposition to this Court’s calendar notice, and the time for doing so has now passed. “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we reverse the district court’s judgment against Petitioner and remand for further proceedings.

{2}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.