Barnes v. District Court, In and For City and County of Denver, No. 79SA579
| Docket Nº | No. 79SA579 |
| Citation | 199 Colo. 310, 607 P.2d 1008 |
| Case Date | March 17, 1980 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 1008
The Insurance Board of the State of Colorado, Kirk Brady,
James Q. Hammond, Ronald T. Anderson, Doris Drury and James
F. Poole, as members of the Insurance Board of the State of
Colorado, Petitioners,
v.
DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and
The Honorable RayJones, Judge, Second Judicial District,
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation andFidelity National
Title Insurance Company, Respondents.
[199 Colo. 311] J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., David K. Rees, Chief, Appeals, Litigation Section, Sandra B. McCray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioners.
Holland & Hart, Wiley E. Mayne, Jr., James E. Hartley, Denver, for respondent Dist. Court, and the Honorable Ray Jones, Judge, Second Judicial District and Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
Grant, McHendrie, Haines & Crouse, Charles H. Haines, Jr., G. E. Oppenneer,
Page 1009
Denver, for respondent Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co.PER CURIAM.
This original proceeding was instituted by the Commissioner of Insurance (Commissioner) pursuant to C.A.R. 21. The Commissioner's petition challenges the jurisdiction of the respondent district court which issued an order countermanding the Commissioner's ruling pertaining to title insurance rates to be charged by Transamerica Title Insurance Company (Transamerica) and Pioneer National Title Insurance Company (Pioneer). We issued a rule to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted and stayed the district court's order. We now discharge the rule as the issue in controversy is moot.
On December 4, 1979, a rate filing made by the Colorado Title Insurance Rating Bureau (Rating Bureau) on behalf of its members was approved in accordance with sections 10-1-103.2 and 10-4-406, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Supp.). The approved filing requested a 20% rate increase for all members of the Rating Bureau to be effective January 1, 1980. Transamerica, a member of the Rating Bureau, did not desire to charge the higher rates and on December 12, 1979, submitted a new rate filing requesting authority to continue to charge lower rates after January 1, 1980. Subsequently, Pioneer, also a member of the Rating Bureau, made a similar request. On December 27, 1979, Commissioner Barnes scheduled a public hearing regarding the Transamerica...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. Ritter, No. 05CA0752.
...into effect, and not ... to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." Barnes v. Dist. Court, 199 Colo. 310, 312, 607 P.2d 1008, 1009 (1980) (quoting People v. Dist. Court, 78 Colo. 526, 530, 242 P. 997, 998 Barber is a real estate broker licensed......
-
Cottrell v. City and County of Denver, No. 80SA279
...cannot affect the matter in issue is not our function and would add nothing to the present case. See Barnes v. District Court, Colo., 607 P.2d 1008 (1980); Bestway Disposal v. P.U.C., 184 Colo. 428, 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). In light of our disposition of this appeal and the absence of harm to ......
-
Dempsey v. Romer, No. 91SA9
...no practical effect upon the controversy. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, 798 P.2d 424 (Colo.1990); Barnes v. District Court, 199 Colo. 310, 607 P.2d 1008 (1980); see Lininger v. City of Sheridan, 648 P.2d 1097 (Colo.App.1982). However, a case requiring adjudication of questions o......
-
Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, No. 88SC527
...case is moot when a judgment, if rendered, would have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Barnes v. District Court, 199 Colo. 310, 607 P.2d 1008 (1980). The general rule Page 427 is that when issues presented in litigation become moot because of subsequent events, an ap......
-
Barber v. Ritter, No. 05CA0752.
...into effect, and not ... to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." Barnes v. Dist. Court, 199 Colo. 310, 312, 607 P.2d 1008, 1009 (1980) (quoting People v. Dist. Court, 78 Colo. 526, 530, 242 P. 997, 998 Barber is a real estate broker licensed......
-
Cottrell v. City and County of Denver, No. 80SA279
...cannot affect the matter in issue is not our function and would add nothing to the present case. See Barnes v. District Court, Colo., 607 P.2d 1008 (1980); Bestway Disposal v. P.U.C., 184 Colo. 428, 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). In light of our disposition of this appeal and the absence of harm to ......
-
Dempsey v. Romer, No. 91SA9
...no practical effect upon the controversy. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, 798 P.2d 424 (Colo.1990); Barnes v. District Court, 199 Colo. 310, 607 P.2d 1008 (1980); see Lininger v. City of Sheridan, 648 P.2d 1097 (Colo.App.1982). However, a case requiring adjudication of questions o......
-
Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, No. 88SC527
...case is moot when a judgment, if rendered, would have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Barnes v. District Court, 199 Colo. 310, 607 P.2d 1008 (1980). The general rule Page 427 is that when issues presented in litigation become moot because of subsequent events, an ap......