Albright v. District Court of City and County of Denver

Decision Date10 September 1962
Docket NumberNo. 20300,20300
PartiesWilfred M. ALBRIGHT and H. Lucille Albright, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, State of Colorado, and Saul Pinchick, a Judge thereof, Respondents
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Ed Conly, Denver for petitioners.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard W. Bangert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

MOORE, Justice.

This is an original proceeding which involves certain procedures in the district court of the City and County of Denver arising under Rule 5 of the local rules adopted by the judges of the second judicial district.

It appears that an action there pending, in which petitioners are plaintiffs and John A. and Bonnie L. Crouch are defendants, came on for pre-trial conference on February 16, 1962, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of said district court.

A pre-trial conference order was prepared, but was not signed by the judge before whom the pre-trial conference was held. Counsel for petitioners assert that:

'4. The respondent judge thereupon informed counsel that the pre-trial order had never been signed. He stated that such order would not be signed until said counsel approved the order as to substance as well as to form, the objections noted in Exhibit 'B', attached, notwithstanding. He stated further that he would vacate the trial date previously set for July 2, 1962, as above noted unless the order were so approved, or a petition for relief or other proceeding in the Supreme Court commenced by May 21. A minute order to such effect was entered by the judge. That such order effectively denies Plaintiffs due process of law, and illegally conditions their right to a trial upon involuntary approval by counsel of matters duly objected to, and sought to be reserved as possible grounds for later appeal, if necessary.

'5. That such 'local' Rule 5, contrary to Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure makes no provision for a pre-trial order which 'recites the action taken at the conference * * *.' Plaintiffs have nonetheless attempted to preserve such matters by including them in paragraph 7 of the pre-trial order (Exhibit A) relating to issues of laws to be litigated at the trial. Such paragraph details the objections which were overruled and the motions which were denied.

'6. Requiring counsel in this or in any other case to approve an order in substance would force the waiver of objections duly raised and sought to be maintained. Law and custom in the State of Colorado dictate the securing of such approval, in form, by losing counsel for the reason that he is thereby afforded an opportunity to review orders prepared by successful counsel, to see that they accurately reflect oral orders previously entered by the Court. Such approval is to form, only, because it is recognized that the unsuccessful attorney maintains objections to the substance of such order and may properly use the same for his appeal.'

It is agreed that said Rule 5 'forces pretended admissions and agreements, where none exists, and climaxes itself requiring attorneys' approval as to substance of orders entered by the Court irrespective of whether there are agreements, admissions, or stipulations of the parties.' Rule 5(e) 3(g) provides that the court hearing a pretrial conference will

'Direct the preparation by counsel for the plaintiff of a pre-trial order to be approved in form and substance by attorneys for all parties and to be submitted to the judge for signature.'

The said rule in sub-section (j) thereof provides for the preparation of a pre-trial order. We find therein the following pertinent language: 'The pre-trial order shall be in the following form: (Here follows a list of matters to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1986
    ...C.R.C.P. 16(a)(8): 8 to shorten trial time, to simplify the issues and to reduce the possibility of mistrial. In Albright v. District Court, 150 Colo. 487, 375 P.2d 685 (1962), we noted that for purposes of appeal approval of a pretrial order by a party did not effect a waiver of that party......
  • Miller v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • March 24, 2000
    ...ordinarily does not signify general consent to, and approval of, the substance of the document. See generally Albright v. District Court, 150 Colo. 487, 375 P.2d 685 (Colo.1962) (Local rule required counsel to sign a pretrial order signifying his approval as to form and content. Counsel sig......
  • Maes v. Lakeview Associates, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 1994
    ...a pre-trial ruling or otherwise continuously object during trial to preserve a pre-trial ruling for appeal. See Albright v. District Court, 150 Colo. 487, 375 P.2d 685 (1962). II. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in its pre-trial ruling that Maes was a "licensee." We In 1971, o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT