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

• In 2016, a private land lessor corralled twelve free-roaming horses—seven mares and five foals—onto her property and contacted the New Mexico Livestock Board (the Board), which then took possession of the horses. The Board planned to sell the horses at auction, contrary to their initial statement of returning them to Lincoln County. Wild Horse Observers Association, Inc. (WHOA) filed for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting the Board unlawfully treated the horses as estray livestock (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Wild Horse Observers Association, Inc. v. New Mexico Livestock Board, (Wild Horse I), 2016-NMCA-001: The court concluded certain free-roaming horses could not be classified as "livestock" or "estray" but as "wild horses" (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (WHOA): Argued the Board exceeded its authority by unlawfully treating the corralled horses as estray livestock and sought an order declaring the horses as wild horses, not subject to impoundment or sale by the Board (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant (New Mexico Livestock Board): Contended that since the horses were captured on private, not public land, they should not be considered "wild horses" under the relevant statute and challenged the district court's findings and injunction as vague and unsupported by evidence (paras 6, 28-29).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding the corralled horses are "wild horses" under Section 77-18-5(A)(4) despite being captured on private land (para 7).
• Whether the Board should adhere to Section 77-18-5(B) when it wrongfully took possession of the horses on private land (para 7).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's determination that the horses are wild horses and may not be treated as estray but reversed the determination that the Board should have conducted its statutory duties under Section 77-18-5 when capturing horses on private land. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for additional consideration of attorney fees (para 41).

Reasons

• The court found that the subject horses, having roamed various public lands, fit the statutory definition of "wild horses" and could not be treated as estray by the Board, regardless of their capture on private land (paras 15-20). However, the court concluded that the Board's statutory duties under Section 77-18-5(B), including testing for DNA to determine if a horse is a Spanish colonial horse, only apply to horses captured on public land. Thus, the district court erred in applying these requirements to horses captured on private land (paras 21-25). The court also addressed and dismissed the Board's challenges to the district court's findings and injunction as either unsupported by evidence or irrelevant to the legal conclusions (paras 26-40).