City of Aurora v. Hood
| Citation | 194 Colo. 80,570 P.2d 246 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 27404,27404 |
| Parties | CITY OF AURORA, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred H. HOOD, W. Robert Semple, Robert E. Broom, Nathan L. Wycoff, Benny K. Blake, and Jerome J. Fricke, as members of the Board of Trustees of the Aurora City Police Retirement System, David L. Wilhelm, and W. Robert Semple, as City Manager of the City of Aurora, Colorado, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Leland M. Coulter, Richard Kaufman, Louise L. Edmonds, Aurora, for petitioner-appellant.
Ronald S. Loser, Littleton, for respondents-appellees.
Atler, Zall & Haligman, P. C., Lawrence M. Henry, Denver, for respondent-appellee, David L. Wilhelm.
Respondent David L. Wilhelm ("Wilhelm"), a former member of the Aurora Police Department, made application for permanent disability to the respondent Board of Trustees of the Aurora City Police Retirement System ("Board"). On March 18, 1976, the Board granted a permanent disability pension to Wilhelm. The City of Aurora ("City") initiated this action by filing a petition with the district court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106 alleging that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in awarding the pension to Wilhelm. On March 26, 1976, the district court entered an Order to Show Cause and a Restraining Order precluding the Board from making any monthly disbursements until the court had fully reviewed the matter.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss the City's complaint on the ground that the City ordinance contained in section 1-18-13 of chapter 18, title I, of the Aurora City Code together with section 31-30-605, C.R.S.1973, provide that the Board's decision shall be final and not subject to judicial review. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint holding that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed. The City of Aurora filed an appeal in this court contending that if, in truth, the ordinance and statute do exclude judicial review, then those enactments are unconstitutional. We hold that judicial review is not barred by the language of the legislation in question, and therefore, reverse the trial court.
Section 1-18-13 of the Aurora City Code provides:
This is to be read in conjunction with section 31-30-605, C.R.S.1973:
The issue presented here is whether the words "final" and "final and conclusive" in the subject enactments exempt the Board's decision from judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106. While in Shearer v. Trustees, 121 Colo. 592, 218 P.2d 753 (1950), we noted that the state statute would "appear" to deprive the district court of jurisdiction, we there expressly reserved the question of its scope which we now address.
Initially it is to be noted that contributory pensions in Colorado are in the nature of a contractual property right and not a mere privilege or gratuity. See, Police Pension and Relief Board v. McPhail, 139 Colo. 330, 338 P.2d 694 (1959) and Police Pension and Relief Board of Denver v. Bills, 148 Colo. 383, 366 P.2d 581 (1961). Accordingly, this court must carefully scrutinize the enactments in question in order to insure that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Springs Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 5 v. City of Colorado Springs
...eligibility requirements. See Police Pension & Relief Bd. v. Bills, 148 Colo. 383, 366 P.2d 581 (1961); City of Aurora v. Hood, 194 Colo. 80, 82, 570 P.2d 246, 247 (1977); Benson v. City of Sheridan, 31 Colo.App. 540, 544-45, 506 P.2d 401, 403 (1972). Employees who terminate their employmen......
-
Bonacci v. City of Aurora
...to a determination of whether the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. See Aurora v. Hood, 194 Colo. 80, 570 P.2d 246 (1977); Snyder v. Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P.2d 371 (1975). Bonacci's failure to join the declaratory judgment claim with a claim ......
-
Cadnetix Corp. v. City of Boulder
...of is complete. See Snyder v. Lakewood, supra. This can be described as "the point of administrative finality," see Aurora v. Hood, 194 Colo. 80, 570 P.2d 246 (1977), which leaves nothing further for the agency to decide. Therefore, we must examine the circumstances here to determine the po......
-
Bonacci v. City of Aurora, 79CA0269
...properly pursued his administrative remedy, judicial review was available to him pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4); Aurora v. Hood, 194 Colo. 80, 570 P.2d 246 (1977), and it was the "proper remedy." Turner v. Denver, 146 Colo. 336, 361 P.2d 631 (1961). However, plaintiff was obligated to seek ......
-
Discovery and Judicial Review in State Administrative Practice
...91 (1980). 72. Loesch v. State Department of Revenue, 194 Colo. 169, 171, 570 P.2d 530, 532 (1977); supra, note 71. 73. Aurora v. Hood, 194 Colo. 80, 83, 570 P.2d 246, 247-248 (1977). 74. Stevens v. Civil Service Commission, 172 Colo. 446, 448, 474 P.2d 156, 157 (1970). 75. Bennett v. Price......