Hoffman v. City of Fort Collins

• Decision Date: 05 October 1971
• Docket Number: 24530,Nos. 71--250,s. 71--250
• Citation: Hoffman v. City of Fort Collins, 489 P.2d 355, 30 Colo.App. 123 (Colo. App. 1971)
• Parties: Charles W. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Colorado, et al., Defendants in Error. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 355

489 P.2d 355

30 Colo.App. 123

Charles W. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CITY OF FORT COLLINS, Colorado, et al., Defendants in Error.

Nos. 71--250, 24530.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Oct. 5, 1971.

Gerash & Kaiser, Joseph Saint-Veltri, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Arthur E. March, A. E. March, Jr., John-David Sullivan, Fort Collins, for defendants in error.

PIERCE, Judge.

This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.

The City of Fort Collins (City) is a Home Rule municipal corporation. Its city charter does not provide for a civil service system. The charter places authority in the city manager for hiring and firing police department personnel. There are no provisions in the charter for hearing or review of dismissals ordered by the city manager. Plaintiff was dismissed from his position as a police officer by the city manager on recommendation of the chief of police, and thereafter brought two actions against the City on a number of grounds. These actions were later consolidated into one case. The City's motion for dismissal of the action was granted and it is from this ruling that plaintiff appeals.

The only question presented on appeal is whether, under the facts of this case, the district court has jurisdiction to review the city manager's action on certiorari as provided under R.C.P.Colo. 106(a)(4). Under the rule, certiorari is available only upon exercise of a 'judicial or quasi-judicial' function. See State Civil Service Commission v. Cummings, 83 Colo. 379, 265 P. 687. We rule that the city manager's action was purely administrative and affirm the trial court's determination that it had no jurisdiction to review the action of the manager.

In Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356, 407 P.2d 325, the Colorado Supreme Court set forth the test for distinguishing judicial and quasi-judicial acts from administrative acts:

'Courts have mentioned several methods by which a distinction is drawn between a ministerial or legislative act on the one hand, and a quasi-judicial act on the other. The most common test is to determine whether the function under consideration involves the exercise of discretion and requires notice and hearing. If these elements are present the 'finding' is generally a quasi-judicial act; if any of them are absent it is generally an administrative act.'

See State Board of Land Com'rs. v. Carpenter, 16 Colo.App. 436, 66 P. 165. The recognized authorities are in accord with this position. In 2 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 12.267 ...