BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. City of Aurora
| Decision Date | 26 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01CA1380.,01CA1380. |
| Citation | 62 P.3d 1049 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF AURORA, a Colorado municipal corporation; and Gartrell Investment Company, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
10 cases
-
People v. Burlingame
...(applying de novo review to the construction of a contract, which "is a question of law for the court"); Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. City of Aurora , 62 P.3d 1049, 1053 (Colo. App. 2002) (noting that interpretation of the Municipal Annexation Act "is a question of law for the court to decide, an......
-
Golf v. Town of La Veta
...by Ordinance No. 131 did not become effective.9 We are not persuaded otherwise by Grandote's reliance on Board of County Commissioners v. City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049 (Colo.App.2002). In that case, a division of this court concluded that an annexation was not rendered invalid where the cont......
-
Field Point Park v. Planning and Zoning, 27231.
..."open space" simply because it contains impervious pavement, also are unpersuasive. See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049, 1052-53 (Colo.App. 2002) (holding that roadway, improved by grading and surfacing, could not be "open space"). This is so because one of the ......
-
Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Montezuma
...word in a way similar to how it is used in other sections within Title 43. See Castillo , ¶ 42 ; see also Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. City of Aurora , 62 P.3d 1049, 1052 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying a definition of a statutory term that "comports with the General Assembly's use of the term elsewh......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.3 • MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965
...City Council, 493 P.2d 651 (Colo. 1972).[19] C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a) (emphasis supplied).[20] Douglas County Comm'rs v. City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049 (Colo. App. 2002). [21] C.R.S. § 31-12-107(1)(e)(III).[22] Jefferson County Comm'rs v. City & County of Denver, 543 P.2d 521 (Colo. 1975).[23......