N.M. R. App. P. 12-607

As amended through November 1, 2024

Rule 12-607 - Certification from other courts to the Supreme Court

A.Power to answer.

(1) The Supreme Court may answer by formal written opinion questions of law certified to it by a court of the United States, an appellate court of another state, a tribe, Canada, a Canadian province or territory, Mexico, or a Mexican state if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and the question is one for which answer is not provided by a controlling

(a) appellate opinion of the New Mexico Supreme Court or the New Mexico Court of Appeals; or

(b) constitutional provision or statute of this state.

(2) The Supreme Court may answer by formal written opinion questions of law certified to it by a New Mexico stream adjudication court if

(a) the answer may materially advance the ultimate resolution of the adjudication; and

(b) the question is one for which answer is not provided by a controlling

(i) appellate opinion of the New Mexico Supreme Court or the New Mexico Court of Appeals; or

(ii) constitutional provision or statute of this state.

B.Method of invoking. The court certifying a question of law shall issue a certification order and forward it to the Supreme Court.

C.Contents of certification request. A certification order must contain

(1) the names and addresses of counsel of record and parties appearing without counsel;

(2) the question of law to be answered;

(3) the facts relevant to the question, showing fully the nature of the controversy out of which the question arose. If the parties cannot agree on a statement of facts, the certifying court shall determine the relevant facts and state them as part of its certification order; and

(4) a statement acknowledging that the Supreme Court may reformulate the question.

D.Response. The Supreme Court shall notify the certifying court of acceptance or rejection of the question and, in accordance with notions of comity and fairness, respond to an accepted certified question as soon as practicable.

E.Briefs. Unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court, the Court, in its acceptance of certification, shall designate which party shall file the first brief on the question certified. Unless otherwise ordered, the first brief shall be filed within forty-five (45) days of mailing of notification by the Court that it will answer the question certified. The opposing party shall file its answer brief or briefs within forty-five (45) days of service of the first brief. A reply brief may be filed within twenty (20) days of service of the answer brief. Briefs and service thereof shall be in the manner and form provided in Rules 12-302, 12-305, 12-307, 12-308, and 12-318 NMRA.

F.Oral argument. Oral argument shall be as provided in Rule 12-319 NMRA for appeals.

G.Record. The Supreme Court, on its own motion or on motion of any party, may request that copies of all or any portion of the record before the certifying court be filed with the Court.

H.Opinion. The Supreme Court shall forward to the certifying court and all parties a copy of its formal written opinion answering the question certified.

N.M. R. App. P. 12-607

As amended, effective 12/1/1993;1/1/1997;12/4/1998; provisionally approved and amended by Supreme Court Order No. 07-8300-014 for one year, effective 6/13/2007; provisionally approved by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300 for one additional year, effective 6/9/2008; provisionally approved by Supreme Court Order No. 09-8300-016, for one additional year, effective 5/12/2009; approved by Supreme Court Order No. 10-8300-019, effective 5/11/2010; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after12/31/2016.

ANNOTATIONS The 2016 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective December 31, 2016, clarified in the heading that the rule applies to certification from other courts to the Supreme Court only, expanded the time within which to file briefs, and made stylistic and technical changes; in the heading, added "to the Supreme Court"; in Paragraph (E), in the first sentence, after "the first brief", deleted "in the court", in the second sentence, after "shall be filed", deleted "with the court", after "within", deleted "thirty (30)" and added "forty-five (45)", in the third sentence, after "briefs within", deleted "thirty (30)" and added "forty-five (45)", in the fourth sentence, after "reply brief may be filed within", deleted "fifteen (15)" and added "twenty (20)", after the fourth sentence, deleted "The time for filing briefs may be extended as provided for in Paragraph C of Rule 12-309 NMRA of these rules.", in the last sentence of the paragraph, deleted "12-213", and after "12-308", added "12-318"; in Paragraph (F), deleted "12-214" and added "12-319"; and in Paragraph (G), after "motion or", deleted "upon" and added "on". The 2007 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 07-8300-014, effective June 13, 2007, added new Subparagraph (2) providing for certification from a New Mexico stream adjudication court. The 1998 amendment, effective December 4, 1998, rewrote Paragraphs A through C, deleted former Paragraphs D and E, relating to filing of a certification request and acceptance of certification, added a new Paragraph D, and redesignated Paragraphs F through H as Paragraphs E through H. The 1997 amendment, effective January 1, 1997, substituted "fifteen (15) days" for "ten (10) days" in the fourth sentence in Paragraph F.

For the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, see Section 39-7-1N MSA 1978 et seq. For statutory stream system adjudication suits, see Rule 1-071.1 NMRA et seq. Intent of certification. - The intent of the certification of facts and determinative answer requirements is that the supreme court avoid rendering advisory opinions. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709. Sufficiency requirements for certification. - It is sufficient if the certification of facts and the record contain the necessary factual predicates to the supreme court's resolution of the question certified, and it is clear that evidence admissible at trial may be resolved in a manner requiring application of the law in question. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709. Considerations in granting certification. - The degree of uncertainty in the law and prospects for judicial economy in the termination of litigation are considered in deciding whether to accept pretrial certification from federal court. These considerations, however, are appropriately weighed against the advantages of normal appellate review in determining whether to accept certification. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709. Certification properly declined. - Certification was declined, where certified questions regarding the constitutionality of the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act were not accompanied by sufficient nonhypothetical evidentiary facts to allow the supreme court to adequately determine the constitutionality of the act, and even if the court were able to answer the questions certified, its answer would not be determinative of the issue out of which they arose. Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709.