Except as otherwise permitted or excepted under this article [30-19-1 to 30-19-15 NMSA 1978], any gambling device or gambling place is a public nuisance per se.
The attorney general, any district attorney or any citizen of this state may institute an injunction proceeding to have such public nuisance abated. In the event such injunction is issued on behalf of any citizen of this state it shall not be necessary in such proceeding to show that he is personally injured by the act complained of.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-19-8, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 19-8.
Cross references. — For provision defining a public nuisance, see 30-8-1 NMSA 1978.
For abatement of a public nuisance, see 30-8-8 NMSA 1978.
Former law not exclusive. — Laws 1921, ch. 86, § 9 (40-22-9, 1953 Comp.), providing for closing of gaming-house, did not impair or modify the common-law powers of courts to abate public nuisances summarily inasmuch as it was a permissive statute only. State v. Johnson, 1948-NMSC-033, 52 N.M. 229, 195 P.2d 1017 (decided under prior law).
Suit to enjoin pari-mutuel betting not maintainable. — Plaintiffs could not seek injunctive relief through the general gambling statute, 40-22-6, 1953 Comp., to enjoin defendant from using certain premises for pari-mutuel betting on horse racing, until they could have shown that the pari-mutuel statute, 60-1-10 NMSA 1978, was unconstitutional. Patton v. Fortuna Corp., 1960-NMSC-136, 68 N.M. 40, 357 P.2d 1090.
Destruction of equipment. — Under Laws 1921, ch. 86, § 9 (former 40-22-9, 1953 Comp.), any gaming-house, gambling table, banking game, gaming paraphernalia or gaming device or equipment of any sort was a public nuisance and the equipment could be ordered destroyed upon hearing for an injunction in district court. State v. Las Cruces Elks Club, 1950-NMSC-013, 54 N.M. 137, 215 P.2d 821.
Contempt charge. — Injunction against use of certain premises for gaming was not ineffectual as a basis for contempt charge because of failure of court to order premises closed. Contempt was sufficiently charged by alleging injunction, and subsequent use of premises. State v. Dunn, 1932-NMSC-047, 36 N.M. 258, 13 P.2d 557.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling § 16.
Private residence: gambling in private residence as prohibited or permitted by anti-gambling laws, 27 A.L.R.3d 1074.
66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 48.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.