Colorado State Bd. of Examiners of Architects v. Marshall
Decision Date | 09 September 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 18316,18316 |
Citation | 315 P.2d 198,136 Colo. 200 |
Parties | COLORADO STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF ARCHITECTS, and Roland L. Linder, Walter De Mordaunt, Eugene Sternberg, C. Gordon Sweet, and Nat Sachter, as members thereof, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Donald L. MARSHALL, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Patricia H. Maloy, Samuel R. Freeman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
Donaldson, Hoffman & Goldstein, Abe L. Hoffman, Denver, for defendant in error.
In the trial court defendant in error was plaintiff and will be referred to as petitioner; plaintiffs in error were defendants and will be referred to as the Board.
Petitioner applied to the Board for a license to practice architecture pursuant to C.R.S. '53, 10-2-14(1), which provides that at any time within six months after the act becomes effective, upon application:
'* * * the board shall issue a license without written or oral examination to: (1) Any person who has been engaged in the practice of architecture in Colorado, as defined in subsection (1) of Section 10-2-2, for a period of three years prior to the effective date hereof; * * *.'
Upon submission of petitioner's evidence to the Board it denied him a license and upon rehearing affirmed the denial. Petitioner then applied to the district court for relief in the nature of certiorari under Rule 106, R.C.P.Colo. An order to show cause was issued, return made and after trial the court ordered the license to issue finding that petitioner was qualified therefor under the terms of the statute and that the Board had no discretion in the matter. On the Board's motion execution was stayed for thirty days. No motion for new trial was filed, nor was an order dispensing therewith entered. The Board seeks review in this court and petitioner has moved to dismiss the writ of error urging:
1. That Rule 59(f) requiring a motion for a new trial or an order dispensing therewith has not been complied with.
2. That the Board being judicial, or quasi-judicial, is not a legally aggrieved person with status to prosecute a writ of error to review this judgment; and
3. That the Board having acted in a judicial capacity, its ruling is subject to review by the district court and it has no interest in having the matter again reviewed on writ of error.
The Board urges that it is not necessary to file a motion for new trial in actions arising under Rule 106, since such proceedings are appeals not trials, and denies the validity of the other two points.
We are pursuaded that the first ground of alleged error is determinative of the action, hence we do not decide the other points urged in the motion to dismiss.
Question To Be Determined:
Is a motion for new trial or an order dispensing therewith a condition precedent to seeking relief by writ of error in this court in actions brought under Rule 106, R.C.P.?
This question is answered in the affirmative. Rule 59(f) states:
Rule 106 is entitled 'Forms of Wirts Abolished', the pertinent part of which reads:
'* * * * * *
(Emphasis added.)
This court has often held that Rule 59(f) must be strictly complied with and has only recently reaffirmed this ruling. Kopff v. Judd, 134 Colo. 330, 304 P.2d 623, 626. In the Kopff case the trial court had no evidence before it, only questions of law were involved, and it was said in part: 'This rule applies in cases where a review of a pure question of law is sought, as well as for a review of questions of facts.'
The Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provide for only one form of action (Rule 2) and for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Minshall v. Pettit
...there was made 'in order to set at rest' the speculation as to when Rule 59, R.C.P. (b) and (f) applies. In Colorado State Board, etc. v. Marshall, 136 Colo. 200, 315 P.2d 198, we restated the holding of the Kopff case and said that the rule was meant to apply to actions in the nature of ce......
-
Walter v. Walter, 18432
...motion for a new trial and that is by having the trial court order otherwise. In our recent opinion in Colorado State Board of Examiners of Architects v. Marshall, Colo.1957, 315 P.2d 198 (citing Kopff v. Judd, 134 Colo. 330, 304 P.2d 623), the plaintiffs in error had failed to move for a n......
-
Rueckhaus v. Snow
...filed, the writ of error must be dismissed. See Minshall v. Pettit, 151 Colo. 501, 379 P.2d 394; Colorado State Board of Examiners of Architects v. Marshall, 136 Colo. 200, 315 P.2d 198; and Kopff v. Judd, 134 Colo. 330, 304 P.2d Plaintiffs in error argue that although the motion to set asi......
-
Marriage of Plank, In re
... ... Peter Paul Plank, Appellee ... No. 93CA1878 ... Colorado Court of Appeals, ... Aug. 25, 1994 ... 2; Colorado State Board of Examiners of Architects v. Marshall, 136 Colo ... ...