Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council, 248 P.3d 856

ACP sued the City of Albuquerque under § 1983 alleging due process and takings violations stemming from a revised zoning plan on ACP's leasehold (1995 filing; 2003 jury verdicts for due process and takings).
Final judgment against the City on the due process verdict was entered April 11, 2003, in the amount of $8,349,095 after remedies were partially elected.
ACP sought post-judgment interest arguing § 56-8-4(D) exempts the state and subdivisions from interest unless otherwise provided by statute or common law, and federal law (Section 1961) provides interest in § 1983 actions.
The district court awarded post-judgment interest at 8.75% under state law; the Court of Appeals later reversed, holding state-law exemption applied and § 1961 did not apply to state court § 1983 actions.
This Court granted certiorari to decide (a) whether § 56-8-4(D) permits post-judgment interest at all in state court § 1983 actions and (b) which rate applies when interest is recoverable.
The Court held that § 56-8-4(D) incorporates the federal rate from § 1961 as the applicable rate for post-judgment interest in state court § 1983 actions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 56-8-4(D) exempt state entities from post-judgment interest in § 1983 cases, or does it incorporate other law?	ACP contends § 56-8-4(D) incorporates § 1961 and allows post-judgment interest.	City argues exemption applies unless statute or common law provides otherwise; § 1961 does not apply to state court actions.	§ 56-8-4(D) incorporates § 1961; state entities are not immune where law provides otherwise.
What rate governs post-judgment interest when § 1983 runs in state court?	ACP/NMTLA argue § 56-8-4(A) 8.75% controls as the general rate; § 1961’s floating rate should not apply.	City argues § 1961’s rate cannot be applied in state court, so § 56-8-4(A) controls.	The rate is § 1961(a)’s floating federal rate incorporated by § 56-8-4(D); not the fixed 8.75%.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (Supreme Court, 1990) (purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate, not merely enforce)
Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court, 1988) (remedial goals of § 1983 include compensation and deterrence)
Transpower Constructors v. Grand River Dam Auth., 905 F.2d 1413 (10th Cir., 1990) (interest on money judgments under § 1961 is mandatory)
Folz v. State, 115 N.M. 639 (Ct. App., 1993) (historical development of § 56-8-4(D) and government immunity)
Gaulin v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 505 N.E.2d 898 (Mass. App. Ct., 1987) (section 1961 cannot be directly invoked in state courts)
Sunwest Bank v. Colucci, 117 N.M. 373 (N.M. Supreme Court, 1994) (post-judgment interest at statutory rate from entry)