Prouty v. Heron, 16590
| Docket Nº | No. 16590 |
| Citation | 255 P.2d 755, 127 Colo. 168 |
| Case Date | March 09, 1953 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 755
v.
HERON et al.
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1953.
[127 Colo. 169] John W. Metzger, Atty. Gen., Allen Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Donald C. McKinlay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charles M. Soller, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James D. Parriott, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
George K. Thomas, Denver, for defendant in error.
Louis I. Hart, Jr., Denver, amicus curiae.
MOORE, Justice.
Defendant in error was plaintiff in the trial court and we will herein refer to him as plaintiff. Plaintiffs in error were defendants in the trial court and we will hereinafter refer to them as defendants or board.
Plaintiff filed his complaint in the district court of the City and County of Denver, in which he sought to enjoin defendants from classifying qualified engineers as to specific branches of their profession and thereby limiting the practice of such engineers to those phases of the profession properly belonging to the classification in which such engineers were placed by the board. Plaintiff further sought by court order to correct the roster, and licensing cards, issued by the board to registered engineers, in such manner as to entitle registrants to practice the profession of engineering
Page 756
without limitation as to class or branch of the profession; and for a declaratory judgment holding certain rules and regulations[127 Colo. 170] adopted by the defendant board to be void. He further sought to enjoin the printing and publication, by defendants, of a pamphlet containing, among other things, a roster of engineers authorized to practice their profession in Colorado and the branch of the profession in which each engineer had been classified.November 4, 1949, the trial court granted the relief sought by plaintiff, and thereafter the board brought the case to this court by writ of error to review that judgment.
Chapter 161, page 365 of the 1951 Session Laws of Colorado, relating to 'Engineering and Land Surveying,' became effective March 29, 1951 and pursuant to joint motion of the parties the cause was remanded to the trial court for the purpose of permitting defendants to file a motion for modification of the judgment and for dissolution of the injunction. Said motion was based upon the ground that the stated act of the legislature expressly commanded the performance by defendants of those acts which the trial court had enjoined, and fully authorized the board to do those things of which plaintiff complained.
Plaintiff filed an answer to defendants' motion, in which the 1951 Act of the legislature was attacked on constitutional grounds, which we hereinafter consider. Nine witnesses were examined at the hearing which followed. November 16, 1951, the motion for modification of the judgment and for dissolution of the injunction was denied.
The trial court stated that chapter 161, Session Laws of Colorado 1951, operated as an '* * * infringement on petitioner's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the pertinent section of our own Article 2 of the Colorado Constitution, the court holds the present act unconstitutional * * *.' The trial court accordingly refused to dissolve the injunction.
Facts essential to the proper solution of this controversy are as follows: Plaintiff was duly licensed to practice[127 Colo. 171] the profession of engineering in the State of Colorado on May 12, 1921, under authority vested in the State Board of Engineer Examiners by an Act of the General Assembly approved April 9, 1919. S.L. '19, c. 185, p. 625. This license contained, inter alia, the following statement: 'The State Board of Engineer Examiners of Colorado * * * having determined that Kenneth A. Heron has fully complied with said act and is entitled to a license to practice the Profession of Engineering, do hereby license him to practice said profession * * *.' Thereafter plaintiff left the State of Colorado, returning in the year 1945, and in December of that year he reapplied for registration as a professional engineer in Colorado, paid the required fee, and received a registration card certifying that he was especially qualified to practice in the branch of civil engineering. Plaintiff protested the limitation implied by this qualified registration, and requested a license without limitation or classification, but this never was issued.
In December, 1947, plaintiff against applied for a renewal license to practice his profession for the year 1948 and requested tht his registration be carried on the records of the defendant board as 'professional engineer' without limitation or classification. The request, however, was denied and again the registration card was issued stating that plaintiff was qualified in the branch of civil engineering. Plaintiff demanded a hearing, which was denied.
In the year 1949 plaintiff again was registered as an engineer qualified in the branch of civil engineering, and on June 23rd of that year he, by his attorney, protested such limited registration and made formal demand on the board for the withdrawal fo all limitations on his license to practice engineering in Colorado, and demanded a correction of his registration, including the license card and the roster of engineers, in such manner as to show that he was licensed to practice the profession of engineering without qualification or limitation. [127 Colo. 172] Upon refusal of defendant board to comply with this demand, suit was instituted.
Page 757
In the complaint, counsel for plaintiff set forth the foregoing facts and alleged that defendant board was about to print and publish for free distribution a pamphlet containing, among other things, a roster of registered engineers and the classification to which each was assigned, and further alleged that there was no authority under the law for the printing and distribution of such a roster.
Defendant board in its answer set out the regulations which it had adopted purporting to authorize the classification of engineers and publication of the roster of which plaintiff complained. In the pleadings two questions were raised which were correctly stated by the trial court as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gallegos, No. 80SA252
...which the law, as prescribed, depends." Sapero v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 90 Colo. 568, 11 P.2d 555 (1932); Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168, 255 P.2d 755 380 P.2d at 43. Such a legislative delegation of power to an administrative agency is valid only if the legislature has provided......
-
Colorado Soc. of Community and Institutional Psychologists, Inc. v. Lamm, No. 85SA149
...in licensed status absent proof of culpable conduct by the trainer. Id. at 64 n. 11, 99 S.Ct. at 2649 n. 11. In Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168, 255 P.2d 755 (1953), we held that an engineer who has been granted an unlimited license by the state to engage in all aspects of an engineering occ......
-
United Interchange, Inc. v. Spellacy
...46 Cal.App.2d 277, 115 P.2d 899. A similar line of reasoning controlled the court's decision in the following cases: Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168, 176, 255 P.2d 755; Berry v. Summers, 76 Idaho 446, 452, 283 P.2d 1093; People v. Schaeffer, 310 Ill. 574, 580, 142 N.E. 248; Scully v. Halliha......
-
Profita v. Puckett, Civil Action No. 15-cv-01237-DME-CBS
...Schuler v. Univ. of Minn., 788 F.2d 510 (8th Cir. 1986)). 24. In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Profita also cites Prouty v. Heron, 255 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1953) for the proposition that "one who is qualified for admittance and license to practice [a particular profession] without restric......
-
People v. Gallegos, 80SA252
...which the law, as prescribed, depends." Sapero v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 90 Colo. 568, 11 P.2d 555 (1932); Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168, 255 P.2d 755 380 P.2d at 43. Such a legislative delegation of power to an administrative agency is valid only if the legislature has provided......
-
Colorado Soc. of Community and Institutional Psychologists, Inc. v. Lamm, 85SA149
...in licensed status absent proof of culpable conduct by the trainer. Id. at 64 n. 11, 99 S.Ct. at 2649 n. 11. In Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168, 255 P.2d 755 (1953), we held that an engineer who has been granted an unlimited license by the state to engage in all aspects of an engineering occ......
-
United Interchange, Inc. v. Spellacy
...46 Cal.App.2d 277, 115 P.2d 899. A similar line of reasoning controlled the court's decision in the following cases: Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168, 176, 255 P.2d 755; Berry v. Summers, 76 Idaho 446, 452, 283 P.2d 1093; People v. Schaeffer, 310 Ill. 574, 580, 142 N.E. 248; Scully v. Halliha......
-
Profita v. Puckett, Civil Action No. 15-cv-01237-DME-CBS
...Schuler v. Univ. of Minn., 788 F.2d 510 (8th Cir. 1986)). 24. In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Profita also cites Prouty v. Heron, 255 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1953) for the proposition that "one who is qualified for admittance and license to practice [a particular profession] without restric......