Winston v. New Mexico State Police Bd.

Decision Date02 June 1969
Docket NumberNo. 8655,8655
Citation80 N.M. 310,1969 NMSC 66,454 P.2d 967
PartiesA. P. WINSTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE BOARD and Irving E. Moore, I. D. Worrell, Clay Fultz, Henry Jaramillo and Pilar Sachs, Individually and as Members of the New Mexico State Police Board, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

NOBLE, Chief Justice.

Pursuant to a regulation adopted by the State Police Board April 26, 1967, effective June 1, 1967, A. P. Winston, then 57 years of age, was involuntarily retired as a state police officer because he had completed thirty years of service. In a declaratory judgment proceeding, the trial court declared the Board to be without lawful authority to require Winston's involuntary retirement prior to his attaining the statutory mandatory retirement age of 61, and permanently enjoined and restrained the Board from attempting to enforce the retirement order. The State Police Board has appealed.

The retirement order promulgated by the Board requires the involuntary retirement of police officers at age 61 or upon the completion of thirty years of service, whichever first occurs. The authority of the police board to promulgate rules and regulations must be found in and is limited by statute. Morrow v. Clayton, 326 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1963). See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Nat'l Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438. We, accordingly, examine the statutes to ascertain the authority of the police board and the limitation of its power to involuntarily retire police officers. See Pan American World Airways v. United States, 371 U.S. 296, 83 S.Ct. 476, 9 L.Ed.2d 325, and the statement of the rule in 1 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 44, at 846. It is, of course, a fundamental principle of administrative law that the authority of the agency is not limited to those powers expressly granted by statute, but includes, also, all powers that may fairly be implied therefrom. Morrow v. Clayton, supra; United States v. Pennsylvania R.R.,323 U.S. 612, 65 S.Ct. 471, 89 L.Ed. 499.

The Board agrees that any power it has in this respect must be found in § 39-2-21, N.M.S.A. 1953, reading:

'The New Mexico state police board shall have authority to make and promulgate rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this article (New Mexico Compilation of 1941, chapter 40, article 2 (39-2-1 to 39-2-26)). Said board shall establish by rules, from time to time, standards of conduct for members of the New Mexico state police and a copy thereof shall be delivered to each such member and displayed at each station of said department. Such rules shall be filed with the librarian of the Supreme Court library pursuant to New Mexico Compilation of 1941, section 3-713 (4-10-13) as amended.'

Legislative intent is to be determined primarily by the language of the act, State v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 74 N.M. 55, 390 P.2d 437; and words used in a statute are to be given their ordinary and usual meaning unless a different intent is clearly indicated. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Marquez, 67 N.M. 353, 355 P.2d 287. It is likewise a cardinal rule that in construing particular statutory provisions to determine legislative intent, an entire act is to be read together so that each provision may be considered in its relation to every...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Bokum Resources Corp. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 16, 1979
    ...authority is limited to the powers expressly granted by its enabling statute and fairly implied therefrom. Winston v. New Mexico State Police Board, 80 N.M. 310, 454 P.2d 967 (1969). Thus, Bokum argues that the regulations in question require the Director to deny permits for reasons not spe......
  • Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Las Cruces, 9117
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • April 26, 1971
    ...the words used therein are to be given their usual meaning, unless a different intent is clearly indicated. Winston v. New Mexico State Police Board, 80 N.M. 310, 454 P.2d 967 (1969); Gonzales v. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int. U., 77 N.M. 61, 419 P.2d 257 (1966). It appears to me tha......
  • 1998 -NMCA- 37, Kahrs v. Sanchez, 17865
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 5, 1997
    ...agency " 'to promulgate rules and regulations must be found in and is limited by statute' ") (quoting Winston v. New Mexico State Police Bd., 80 N.M. 310, 311, 454 P.2d 967, 968 (1969)) and 2) the common law on subrogation: "Historically the common law prevented assignment of a person's cau......
  • Stang v. Hertz Corp., 8979
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • March 23, 1970
    ...of the Act as a whole. State ex rel. Clinton Realty Co. v. Scarborough, 78 N.M. 132, 429 P.2d 330 (1967); Winston v. New Mexico State Police Board, 80 N.M. 310, 454 P.2d 967 (1969). We have not only considered the reference to pecuniary injury, but have also considered the reference in § 22......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT