Crowe v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 25 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22371,No. RE--1,RE--1,22371 |
| Parties | Robert E. CROWE, Helen K. Mueller, Eldon L. Cull, Lorraine P. Crowe, Robert Ferguson, Donna M. Ferguson, and William C. Russell, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Beverly WHEELER, Neal Pine, Robert Crow, Charles A. Anderson, Jr., Dowell Blake, Morris Steen and Mildred Blake, individually and as members of the Board of Education of Gilpin County School District, in the County of Gilpin, State of Colorado; F. Morgan Gray, individually and as the County Clerk and Recorder of Gilpin County, State of Colorado; and Gilpin County School District Gilpin County, Colorado, a body Corporate, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Albert B. Dawkins and Robert E. Holland, Denver, Richard D. Gilson, Golden, for plaintiffs in error.
John W. Lentz, Englewood, Raymond J. Cody, Arvada, for defendants in error.
Alleging that conflicting opinions had been circulated regarding the qualifications required of voters at a school bond election scheduled for December 18, 1965, the plaintiffs in error on December 14, 1965 filed a complaint and petition seeking an injunction against proceeding with the election and also a declaratory judgment defining the voting qualifications. This school bond election had been called by School District No. RE--1 of Gilpin County, Colorado.
The plaintiffs described themselves in their complaint and petition as 'potential voters' and representative of a class so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court. They alleged that uncertainty and confusion has resulted from the conflicting opinions, including two by attorneys, causing a situation where 'persons who may be entitled to vote at said election will be disfranchised and persons who may not be entitled to vote at said election will, nevertheless, cast ballots thereat and the election and the bonds issued pursuant thereto will be void.'
Two examples of the conflicting opinions of the two attorneys were attached as exhibits to the complaint and petition. The opinion of one of the attorneys was incorporated in an article captioned 'Vote Qualifications and Information' in a local newspaper published December 13, 1965. The other opinion was set forth in a letter directed to the Superintendent of Schools of Gilpin County. As to this opinion, there is no indication from the pleadings or attached exhibits whether it in any way was exposed to general scrutiny. The variance between these two opinions involves an interpretation of who is a 'qualified taxpaying elector' in a school bond election.
The attorney opinion contained in the newspaper article stated in substance that a purchaser of real property in possession under a contract of sale, who is obligated thereunder to pay the taxes, and is otherwise qualified to vote, may vote. The other attorney opinion stated such a person is not qualified to vote.
A judicial determination of this question is not required by the issues presented by this writ of error. This, however, is an issue in Russell v. Wheeler, No. 22270, Colo., 439 P.2d 43, announced simultaneously with this opinion which case involves an election contest pertaining to this same election. In this companion case, we hold that such a purchaser of real property in possession under a contract of sale is not included within the definition of 'qualified taxpaying elector' as this term is defined in 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 123--11--1(4).
The trial court, after a hearing, refused to enjoin the election which was held as scheduled and resulted in a vote favoring the issuance of the bonds. The trial court, however, did order the defendants to answer on the merits of the complaint as it pertains to the declaratory judgment relief requested. Rather than answer, however, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and petition on the grounds, among others, of failure to state a claim, and more specifically, on the ground that the issue is moot because the election had been held.
This motion to dismiss was sustained by the trial court on the grounds of 'failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in that the matters alleged therein are moot.'
Plaintiffs bring this writ of error claiming the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and petition. The trial court's refusal to enjoin the holding of the election on December 18, 1965 does not appear to have been made a major issue by the plaintiffs who thrust their sole arguments against the trial court's refusal to proceed with the action and enter a declaratory judgment.
However, because of the nature of the allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. Park County
... ... [then] there is no justiciable controversy alleged as between the plaintiffs and the defendants." Crowe v. Wheeler, 165 Colo. 289, 295, 439 P.2d 50, 53 (1968) (holding action to enjoin election and for declaration of rights concerning eligibility of ... ...
-
Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe
... ... In my view, the problems surrounding the passage of the "long bill" have become moot ... In Crowe v. Wheeler, 165 Colo. 289, 439 P.2d 50 (1968), we stated: ... [A] judicial tribunal is not required to render a judicial opinion on a matter which ... ...
-
Davidson v. Sandstrom, No. 03SC287.
... ... a statutory requirement has not been substantially complied with by those responsible for calling, scheduling, and conducting the election." Crowe v. Wheeler, 165 Colo. 289, 294, 439 P.2d 50, 52 (1968) ... It appears indisputable to us that the true will of the electors of the Tenth Judicial ... ...
-
Zoning Bd of Adjustment of Garfield County v. DeVilbiss, 84SC318
... ... See Crowe v. Wheeler, 165 Colo. 289, 439 P.2d 50 (1968); 13A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3 (2d ed. 1984) ... ...