N.M. R. App. P. 12-404
ANNOTATIONS The 2016 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective December 31, 2016, in Paragraph (A), substituted "on" for "upon" throughout the paragraph; in Paragraph (B), added the subparagraph designation and heading "(1) Supreme Court.", after "may be granted", deleted "upon" and added "on", and after "at the time the decision was filed.", added the subparagraph designation and heading "(2) Court of Appeals", and substituted "Court" for "court of appeals" in two places; and in Paragraph (C), in the heading, deleted "effect of failure to act". The 2009 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 09-8300-010, effective May 6, 2009, in Paragraph C, deleted "effect of failure to act" from the caption, and deleted "Any motion for rehearing not acted upon within thirty (30) days after it is filed shall be deemed denied unless otherwise ordered by the court. If a motion for rehearing is granted and no further order or disposition is made of it within thirty (30) days thereafter, or, if argument has been directed, then within thirty (30) days after argument, the relief sought by the motion shall be deemed denied unless otherwise ordered by the court." The 1997 amendment, effective January 1, 1997, substituted "fifteen (15) days" for "ten (10) days" in the fifth sentence in Paragraph A. The 1993 amendment, effective September 1, 1993, in Paragraph B, substituted "whether the justice" for "whether he" in the second sentence, and substituted "the judge had" for "he had" near the end of the last sentence. The 1991 amendment, effective for cases filed in the supreme court and court of appeals on and after September 1, 1991, inserted "who has not filed a brief on rehearing" in the next-to-last sentence in Paragraph A.
For federal rule, see Fed. R. App. P. Rule 40. Motion denied by operation of law. - There is no provision in this rule which provides that a motion for reconsideration or rehearing is deemed denied by operation of law if it is not acted upon by the district court within a certain time period. Paule v. Santa Fe Cnty., 2005-NMSC-021, 138 N.M. 82, 117 P.3d 240. Motion for rehearing. - Proposition which did not have for its basis fundamental error could not, as a matter of right, be raised on motion for rehearing under former Supreme Court Rules. Wilson v. Rowan Drilling Co., 1950-NMSC-046, 55 N.M. 81, 227 P.2d 365. Party filing motion for rehearing without supporting brief was not entitled to reconsideration as of right under former Supreme Court Rules. Dunne v. Petterman, 1948-NMSC-035, 52 N.M. 284, 197 P.2d 618. Motion for reconsideration of initial denial of rehearing motion. - A party's motion for reconsideration of the supreme court's initial denial of his motion for rehearing could properly be considered a motion filed after a subsequent modification of the court's original denial. Boudar v. E.G. & G., Inc., 1987-NMSC-077, 106 N.M. 279, 742 P.2d 491. Questions reviewed on rehearing. - On rehearing, only those questions were reviewed which were provided for by Rule 18 of former Supreme Court Rules and matters which could have been considered on original appeal but had not been raised could not be considered. Pitek v. McGuire, 1947-NMSC-053, 51 N.M. 364, 184 P.2d 647. Tolling period. - The 15-day period for filing a rehearing motion is recognized as a tolling period. Serrano v. Williams, 383 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004). Denial of certiorari writ. - This rule, and its allotment of 15 days to move for rehearing, applies to denials of certiorari by the New Mexico Supreme Court. Serrano v. Williams, 383 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004). New Mexico rules of appellate procedure do not preclude the filing of a motion for rehearing with its Supreme Court to reconsider the denial of a certiorari writ. Serrano v. Williams, 383 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004). New points may not be presented in a petition for rehearing. State v. Curlee, 1982-NMCA-126, 98 N.M. 576, 651 P.2d 111. Civil case was considered to be finally disposed of and mandate issued when time for filing motion for rehearing had expired without motion being filed or, if filed, if same was denied under former Supreme Court Rules. Woodson v. Lee, 1964-NMSC-106, 74 N.M. 227, 392 P.2d 419. Law reviews. - For annual survey of civil procedure in New Mexico, see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 287 (1988). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 878 et seq. Effect of equal division of appellate court upon rehearing after reversal, 131 A.L.R. 1011. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 676 et seq.