Ambrosio v. Baker Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Dist.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 18331,18331 |
| Citation | 139 Colo. 437,340 P.2d 872 |
| Parties | Victor E. AMBROSIO et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. BAKER METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
A. E. Small, Jr., Sol Cohen, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Hackethal & McNeill, Lakewood, for defendant in error.
The parties appear here in the same position as in the trial court with defendant in error The Baker Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District, defendant below, here referred to as the District. Plaintiffs in error Victor E. Ambrosio and others were plaintiffs in the trial court and will be referred to as such.
The District by resolution, pursuant to authority of C.R.S. '53, 89-5-13, had in another suit declared the acquisition of certain property of plaintiffs was in the public interest, necessary for public use for the construction of a sewage disposal plant. Plaintiffs in a separate action sought injunctive relief against the District, seeking to restrain the District from proceeding upon many grounds not pertinent here. A supplemental statement of the case contained in the brief states that in the condemnation suit brought by the District an order for immediate possession was entered; that the land has been acquired and paid for; that the sewage treatment plant is erected and has been in actual operation for some three weeks. The matters presented here, therefore, are moot.
It is pertinent to comment that the expediency of the project or that those seeking to condemn the land for the project might proceed in another way are not appropriate matters of defense in condemnation proceedings. See Mortensen v. Mortensen, 135 Colo. 167, 309 P.2d 197. Therefore, if this writ of error stemmed from the original proceedings we would not give cognizance to such defenses. It is axiomatic that matters which could not be raised in the original condemnation proceedings cannot be asserted in a collateral suit. We also wish to call attention to the long line of authorities followed in Colorado that injunction will not lie to prevent suits in eminent domain since there is adequate remedy at law for damages for the property taken. Town of Glendale v. City and County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053; Colorado Central Power Co. v. City of Englewood, 10 Cir., 89 F.2d 233; Scanland v. Board of County Commissioners, 97 Colo. 37, 46 P.2d 894; Lavelle v. Town of Julesburg, 49 Colo. 290, 112 P. 774.
The issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auraria Businessmen Against Confiscation, Inc. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority
...numerous decisions of this Court holding to the contrary. Colorado Springs v. Crumb, 148 Colo. 32, 364 P.2d 1053; Ambrosio v. Baker District, 139 Colo. 437, 340 P.2d 872; Glendale v. Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053; Scanland v. Commissioners, 97 Colo. 37, 46 P.2d 894; Lavelle v. Julesb......
-
Thornton Development Authority v. Upah
...be raised in the original condemnation proceedings cannot be asserted in a collateral suit." Ambrosio v. Baker Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District, 139 Colo. 437, 438, 340 P.2d 872 (1959). Similarly, collateral issues cannot be raised in the condemnation proceedings. In the instant cas......
-
Zoning Bd of Adjustment of Garfield County v. DeVilbiss, 84SC318
...so in accordance with legal processes and not in ostensible violation of the rights of others. In Ambrosio v. Baker Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District, 139 Colo. 437, 340 P.2d 872 (1959), for example, the defendant water district acquired land from the plaintiffs by condemnation, erec......
-
Dunham v. City of Golden, 72--099
...follows the rule that an injunction action will not lie to prevent suits in eminent domain. Ambrosio v. Baker Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District, 139 Colo. 437, 340 P.2d 872; Glendale v. Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053; Scanland v. Board of County Commissioners, 97 Colo. 37, 46......
-
Tcl - Eminent Domain Law in Colorado - Part I: the Right to Take Private Property - September 2006 - Government and Administrative Law
...Geudner, supra note 29. 46. Mortensen, supra note 40; Goltra, supra note 39. See also Ambrosio v. Baker Metro. Water and Sanitation Dist., 340 P.2d 872, 873 (Colo. 1959) (the expediency of the project or the fact that those seeking to condemn the land for the project might proceed in anothe......
-
Inverse Condemnation Claims After Knick the Promise and Peril of Litigating in Federal Court
...by the court in imine and not by way of a collateral injunction proceeding."); Ambrosio v. Baker Metro. Water and Sanitation Dist, 340 P.2d 872, 873 (Colo. 1959). [31]See, e.g., Thornton Dev Auth. v. Upah, 640 F.Supp. 1071, 1080 (D.Colo. 1986). [32]See Colo. R. Evid. Preamble ("The [Colorad......