functions to administrative agencies.”); see generally 1 Davis & Pierce, supra, § 2.8, at 90-91 (discussing policy reasons for permitting delegation of adjudicatory functions). The Supreme Court has upheld statutory delegations of adjudicatory power to agencies on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 400, 60 S.Ct. 907, 915-16, 84 L.Ed. 1263 (1940) (“Nor is there an invalid delegation of judicial power. To hold that there was would be to turn back the clock on at least a half century of administrative law.”). Similarly, our legislature has empowered certain administrative agencies to adjudicate cases, and this Court has found such delegations to pass constitutional muster. See, e.g., Wylie Corp., 104 N.M. at 753, 726 P.2d at 1383 (<HOLDING>). The separation of powers doctrine does not
holding that creation of a workmens compensation administration and vesting in it the determination of controversies thereunder is a valid exercise of legislative power holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character holding that a commission is a body with special and limited power and it can only exercise the power expressly or impliedly granted to it and any reasonable doubt of existence of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof holding that registration requirements that aid in the collection of taxes are valid exercise of congress power to tax holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment