Cook v. City and County of Denver, 17095
| Citation | 265 P.2d 700,128 Colo. 578 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 17095,17095 |
| Parties | COOK et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Dickerson, Morrissey, Zarlengo & Dwyer, Fred M. Winner, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
John C. Banks, Earl T. Thrasher, Denver, for defendant in error City and County of Denver.
Donaldson, Hoffman & Goldstein, Denver, for defendant in error Housing Authority of City and County of Denver.
On the 10th day of March, 1952, the city council of the City and County of Denver passed Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1952, creating and establishing Valverde Storm Sewer District, and authorized the construction thereof, as well as providing for the issuance of bonds and the assessment of real estate included in the district for the payment of the cost thereof.
On May 12, 1952, Ben H. Cook and eighteen other individual property owners within the district, and the Colorado and Southern Railway Company, for themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in the district court for equitable relief and declaratory judgment seeking an injunction against the building of said storm sewer; asking that all prior actions and ordinances attempting to create the improvement district be held to be void; and further asking that the contract between the City and County of Denver and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver be held void, as well as an ordinance which authorized the contract. The City answered the complaint, but the Housing Authority filed a motion to dismiss. The complaint was amended; both defendants, the City and the Housing Authority, filed motions to dismiss which were sustained; and plaintiffs, by writ of error, seek reversal of the order dismissing their complaint.
The substance of the allegations of the complaint is to the effect that plaintiffs were all taxpaying property owners within the boundaries of the proposed district; that the Manager of Improvements and Parks pretended to conduct hearings; publication of the notice by the Manager of Improvements and Parks is alleged; that in said notice it was stated that objections would be heard December 21, 1951; and on that date the written protest of twelve hundred taxpayers was filed with the Manager of Improvements and Parks; that the Manager of Improvements and Parks believed himself to be bound by the contract entered into between the City and the Housing Authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landmark Towers Ass'n, Inc. v. Umb Bank, N.A.
...itself violate the owner’s right to due process. E.g. , Greenspoon , 140 Colo. at 405-07, 344 P.2d at 681-82 ; Cook v. City & Cty. of Denver , 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700 (1954) ; Pomroy v. Bd. of Pub. Waterworks , 55 Colo. 476, 136 P. 78 (1913). Where, as in this case, the law imposes a pa......
-
Silverman v. University of Colorado
...we are governed by two basic principles: (1) The material allegations of each claim must be taken as admitted, Cook v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700; Millard v. Smith, 30 Colo.App. 466, 495 P.2d 234; and (2) dismissal of a claim is proper only if plaintiff is entitled to no relief und......
-
Bonfils' Estate, In re
...the amended caveat in this case, we are required to treat the allegations of fact in the caveat as admitted. See Cook v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700. The judgment cannot be sustained if substantive law will authorize relief under the facts alleged. Nelson v. Nelson, 31 Colo.App. 63,......
-
Brooks' Estate, Matter of
...for failure to state a claim for relief, the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and admitted. Cook v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700 (1954); Nelson v. Nelson, 31 Colo.App. 63, 497 P.2d 1284 (1972). However, this rule does not apply to conclusions of the pleader......