Chapter 4, Article 48A NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Special Hospital District Act". History: 1978 Comp., § 4-48A-1, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 29, § 1; 1992, ch. 41, § 1. The 1992 amendment, effective May 20, 1992, substituted "Chapter 4, Article 48A NMSA 1978" for "This act". Constitutionality. — The Special Hospital District Act is not invalid because it contains no mechanism by which a property owner whose property is not directly benefited by inclusion within the special hospital district can request an independent tribunal to remove the land from the proposed district. The absence of any special benefit to a particular piece of property is not a sufficient ground for excluding the property from a district whose purpose is to promote the general welfare. If evidence establishing absence of a special benefit does not require exclusion, no forum to hear such evidence is required. State ex rel. Angel Fire Home & Land Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. South Cent. Colfax Cnty. Special Hosp. Dist ., 1990-NMCA-072, 110 N.M. 496, 797 P.2d 285, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 330, 795 P.2d 1022. There appears to be no constitutional prohibition against including property within a special hospital district even though the property and its inhabitants will not benefit from inclusion. Thus, the Special Hospital District Act is not unconstitutional on its face solely because the tax-benefit ratio for certain property owners may differ from that of others within a special hospital district. State ex rel. Angel Fire Home & Land Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. South Cent. Colfax Cnty. Special Hosp. Dist ., 1990-NMCA-072, 110 N.M. 496, 797 P.2d 285, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 330, 795 P.2d 1022. Proposed residential care unit would not be "hospital facility". — Proposed residential care unit, which probably would not have a professional staff or provide medical services but would offer room, board and other nonmedical assistance to those who qualify, would not be a "hospital facility" qualified to receive district funds under the Special Hospital District Act. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-31. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 40A Am. Jur. 2d Hospitals and Asylums § 53. Opposition to construction of new hospital or expansion of existing hospital's facilities as violation of Sherman Act (15 USCS § 1 et seq.), 88 A.L.R. Fed. 478.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.