Three judges of the court of appeals constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but not more than three judges shall sit in any matter on appeal. Decisions of the court shall be in writing with the grounds stated, and the result shall be concurred in by at least two judges. If any judge who participated in a hearing is unable for any reason to participate in a rehearing, or consideration of a motion for rehearing, of any matter, any other judge or acting judge of the court of appeals may participate in consideration of the motion or the case on rehearing.

History: 1953 Comp., § 16-7-11, enacted by Laws 1966, ch. 28, § 11.

Cross references. — For quorum of court of appeals, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 28.

For concurrence of in opinion by majority of participating justices, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 28.

For continuing undecided cases from term to term, see 39-3-6 NMSA 1978.

Case certified to supreme court where two judges concurred but on different grounds. — Where there are three separate proposed opinions of the court of appeals, the first of which would affirm the conviction of defendant on all counts, the second and third of which would reverse and remand for a new trial on two different issues, and it appears that the three proposed opinions, if filed as opinions of the court of appeals, would create uncertainty in the law in that, although there is a majority for reversal, there is no guidance for the future procedure of the case, and it further appears that the court of appeals may not call in additional judges, and, because an uncertain state of law should not exist and because of this fact an issue of substantial public interest is created and should be determined by the supreme court, the case is properly certified to the New Mexico supreme court for decision. State v. Tijerina, 1972-NMCA-169, 84 N.M. 432, 504 P.2d 642; see State v. Tijerina, 1973-NMSC-105, 86 N.M. 31, 519 P.2d 127, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 956, 94 S. Ct. 3085, 41 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1974).

Judge's opinion not concurred in is not "decision". — Where a judge's opinion concerning escalating benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not concurred in by another judge, that justice's view concerning escalating benefits is not a decision of the court of appeals, and a judgment on remand which does not provide for escalating benefits complies with the mandate and opinion of the court of appeals. Casias v. Zia Co., 1980-NMCA-109, 94 N.M. 723, 616 P.2d 436, overruled on other grounds by Purcella v. Navajo Freight Lines, 1980-NMCA-182, 95 N.M. 306, 621 P.2d 523.

Experimental use of advisory committees. — An experimental plan pursuant to which cases would be assigned by the court of appeals to advisory committees of experienced attorneys was not an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power, where the judges reviewed the records and briefs and decided the cases. Thompson v. Ruidoso-Sunland, Inc., 1987-NMCA-023, 105 N.M. 487, 734 P.2d 267.