Campbell v. Meyer

Decision Date22 September 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93CA1565,93CA1565
Citation883 P.2d 617
PartiesDouglas CAMPBELL, Clyde Harkins, and Douglas Bruce, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Natalie MEYER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, and the State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Kevin B. Pratt, Colorado Springs, for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees.

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Stephen G. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees and cross-appellants.

Opinion by Judge MARQUEZ.

In this action for declaratory relief and permanent injunction, plaintiffs, Douglas Campbell, Clyde Harkins, and Douglas Bruce, appeal a summary judgment in favor of defendants, Natalie Meyer, the Secretary of State; and the State of Colorado, on plaintiffs' claims that the ballot title for HB 93-1330 is improper and that HB 93-1330 is unconstitutional. The state cross-appeals a summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs requiring the entire ballot title to be capitalized. We conclude the appeal and cross-appeal are moot and, therefore, dismiss them.

Colo. Const. art. X, § 20, also known as the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), was an initiated constitutional amendment approved by the voters at the 1992 general election. TABOR took effect on December 31, 1992.

The General Assembly passed HB 93-1330, also called the "tourism subsidy tax," in 1993, subject to voter approval. HB 93-1330 included a ballot title for the referred tourism subsidy tax which provided in pertinent part:

Shall state taxes be increased by $13,100,000 annually in the first full fiscal year of implementation, and by $13,100,000 as adjusted for inflation plus the percentage change in state population for each fiscal year after the first full fiscal year of implementation, by reinstating the 0.2 percent sales tax on tourist-related items ...?

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on August 10, 1993, asserting that: (1) HB 93-1330 violates TABOR because it does not state the specific dollar amount of revenue increase to be used in calculating fiscal year spending; (2) the ballot title in HB 93-1330 violates TABOR because it sets out a formula for increase in tax revenues, instead of stating a specific dollar increase; and (3) the ballot title violates TABOR because it was not printed in capital letters.

The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the first two of plaintiffs' claims for relief--the first on grounds that it did not have jurisdiction, and the second on grounds that the substance of the ballot title did not violate TABOR. Plaintiffs prevailed on their third claim and the trial court ordered the ballot title to be printed in capital letters. The voters subsequently defeated the measure at the November 2, 1993, general election.

Defendants contend that because the voters defeated the measure, the case is moot. We agree.

Appellate courts will not render opinions on the merits of appeals when issues presented in litigation become moot because of subsequent events. A case is moot when a judgment, if rendered, would have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy. American Drug Store, Inc. v. Denver, 831 P.2d 465 (Colo.1992).

Here, because the voters did not approve the measure, there is no existing controversy and a determination of the substantive issues presented would have no practical legal effect. See Crowe v. Wheeler, 165 Colo. 289, 439 P.2d 50 (1968) (controversy or uncertainty evaporated when the election was concluded); W-470 Concerned Citizens v. W-470 Highway Authority, 809 P.2d 1041 (Colo.App.1990) (if conduct sought to be addressed is peculiar to election, the occurrence of the election...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Barber v. Ritter
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 2007
    ...moot. A case is moot when a judgment, if rendered, would have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy. Campbell v. Meyer, 883 P.2d 617 (Colo.App.1994). We will not consider and rule on the merits of an appeal when the issues presented to the trial court have become moot due t......
  • Antolovich v. Brown Group Retail, Inc., 04CA1528.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 23, 2007
    ...of residential property be based on an appraisal using the market approach became effective on December 31, 1992. See Campbell v. Meyer, 883 P.2d 617, 618 (Colo.App.1994). These intervening changes in the law since Bankers Trust was decided have elevated "market value" to more than merely a......
  • Grossman v. Dean
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2003
    ...issues of great public importance or recurring constitutional violations. Dempsey v. Romer, 825 P.2d 44 (Colo.1992); Campbell v. Meyer, 883 P.2d 617 (Colo.App.1994). We conclude that both exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply First, this case involves an issue that is capable of repetit......
  • Bertoia v. Denver Gateway LLC
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 2023
    ... ... of appeals when issues presented in litigation become moot ... because of subsequent events." Campbell v ... Meyer , 883 P.2d 617, 618 (Colo.App. 1994) ...          ¶ ... 24 The posting of the supersedeas bond was required to stay ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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