Grant v. District Court In and For Fremont County
| Decision Date | 13 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81SA264,81SA264 |
| Citation | 635 P.2d 201 |
| Parties | G. F. GRANT and Skyland Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT In and For the COUNTY OF FREMONT and State of Colorado and the Honorable John Anderson, a Judge of said Court, Respondents, The City of Canon City and the City Council of the City of Canon City, Respondents-Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Trott, Kunstle & Hughes, P. C., M. Stephen Kautz, Colorado Springs, for petitioners.
Hon. John Anderson, pro se.
Roger M. Breyfogle, City Atty., Canon City, for respondents-real parties in interest.
The petitioners, G.F. Grant and Skyland, Inc., seek relief in the nature of mandamus pursuant to C.A.R. 21. They contend that the trial court erred in dismissing the two claims for relief in their complaint which seek C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review of a zoning ordinance adopted by Canon City, Colorado, and request reinstatement of those claims. We issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted and now make that rule absolute.
On May 19, 1981, the petitioners filed a verified complaint in the Fremont County District Court challenging the validity of a city-wide zoning ordinance adopted by Canon City on April 20, 1981, which replaced an earlier zoning ordinance. The complaint states four claims for relief, the first two under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) and the latter two under C.R.C.P. 57. At the time of filing, the petitioners also sought the issuance of an order to show cause why the new zoning ordinance should not be declared invalid, and to certify the record pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The respondent court took the motion under advisement, and, on May 29, 1981, issued an order on its own motion dismissing the petitioners' first and second claims for relief. Relying upon Snyder v. Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P.2d 371 (1975), the court reasoned that in enacting its new zoning ordinance Canon City had exercised a legislative rather than a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It consequently concluded, "On the face of the pleading Plaintiffs are not entitled to Rule 106(a)(4) review."
The legal standards underlying the present dispute are well established. If the Canon City Council's adoption of the April 20, 1981, zoning ordinance constituted judicial or quasi-judicial action and review of the record would be an effective remedy, then the petitioners' exclusive avenue of review is provided by C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). E. g., Norby v. Boulder, 195 Colo. 231, 577 P.2d 277 (1978); Corper v. Denver, 191 Colo. 252, 552 P.2d 13 (1976); Snyder v. Lakewood, supra. Conversely, review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 is the appropriate procedure where C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) relief is unavailable because the challenged action is legislative or because review of the record is an insufficient remedy. See e. g., Snyder v. Lakewood, supra; Ford Leasing Development Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 186 Colo. 418, 528 P.2d 237 (1974); Regennitter v. Fowler, 132 Colo. 489, 290 P.2d 223 (1955). The criteria used to determine on which side of the line a particular zoning challenge falls have also been repeatedly and consistently stated. See Corper v. Denver, supra; Snyder v. Lakewood, supra.
As the instant case demonstrates, however, application of these criteria is a more formidable task. The petitioners center their attention on the appropriateness of C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review, contending that the present case requires an important and novel application of the Snyder rule in the context of a comprehensive rezoning ordinance. We find, however, that consideration of this question is both unnecessary and unwise at this stage of the proceedings.
The trial court's action in dismissing the C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) claims for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denver Center for the Performing Arts v. Briggs, 83SA146
...in addressing the issues raised by the petitioner. Collopy v. Wildlife Commission, 625 P.2d 994, 1004 (Colo.1981); Grant v. District Court, 635 P.2d 201, 202 (Colo.1981); Norby v. City of Boulder, 195 Colo. 231, 236, 577 P.2d 277, 280 (1978); see Bonacci v. City of Aurora, 642 P.2d 4, 7 (Co......
-
City and County of Denver v. Eggert
...has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy." See Grant v. District Court, Colo., 635 P.2d 201 (1981). Snyder v. City of Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P.2d 371 (1975) sets out a test for determining when an agency action is "judic......
-
Widder v. Durango School Dist. No. 9-R
...Rule 57 where "C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) relief is unavailable ... because review of the record is an insufficient remedy." Grant v. Dist. Court, 635 P.2d 201, 202 (Colo.1981). The goal of Rule 57 "is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, an......
-
Tepley v. Public Employees Retirement Ass'n
...procedure where C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) relief is unavailable because review of the record is an insufficient remedy. Grant v. District Court, 635 P.2d 201 (Colo.1981). In such circumstances, the plaintiff is not limited to the record, but may introduce other evidence relevant to the issues pres......
-
Rule 57 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS.
...because the challenged action is legislative or because review of the record is an insufficient remedy. Grant v. District Court, 635 P.2d 201 (Colo. 1981). Declaratory relief under this rule is an appropriate means of challenging administrative governmental actions that are not subject to r......
-
Rule 106 FORMS OF WRITS ABOLISHED.
...because the challenged action is legislative or because review of the record is an insufficient remedy. Grant v. District Court, 635 P.2d 201 (Colo. 1981). The court acted within its discretion in dismissing a claim for declaratory relief under C.R.C.P. 57, because the review provided under......
-
Judicial Review, Referral and Initiation of Zoning Decisions
...action filed within thirty days, but to allow the addition of constitutional claims after thirty days. 62. See, Grant v. District Court, 635 P.2d 201 (Colo. 1981); Talbott Farms, supra, note 48. 63. CRS § 24-67-101 et seq. and § 31-23-313. 64. Tri-State Generation, supra, note 55; Sundance ......