Swisher v. Brown
Decision Date | 07 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 21510,21510 |
Citation | 402 P.2d 621,157 Colo. 378 |
Parties | Paul W. SWISHER as Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Colorado, the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Otis P. BROWN and George Russ, Defendants in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Clifton A. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Russell P. Kramer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
Gelt & Grossman, Denver, for defendants in error.
We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where the plaintiffs in error were defendants and the defendants in error were plaintiffs.
The action was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaratory judgment with reference to the constitutionality of the Colorado Agricultural Marketing Act of 1939 (C.R.S. '53, 7-3-1 to 23).
The amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs contains three separately stated claims. The first claim involves an attack upon the constitutionality of the Colorado Marketing Act as a whole. The second claim is an attack upon certain marketing orders which were entered by the defendant Swisher pursuant to the authority vested in him under the statute, in so far as such orders purported to impose restrictions upon the production and marketing of lettuce. The third claim consists of an attack upon the provisions of a specific Marketing Order which purported to require the destruction or discing of a part of the 1962 lettuce crop.
The defendants filed their answer in which the issuance of the Marketing Orders by the defendant Swisher was admitted; the contention that the statute is unconstitutional was denied; and it was affirmatively alleged that 'plaintiffs will in fact benefit from compliance with said orders, but defendants admit that if said orders are unconstitutional and void, immediate and irreparable injury would result therefrom.'
The parties stipulated that the cause would first be submitted to the trial court upon the questions of law raised by the first statement of claim. In this connection the trial court in its findings made the following statement:
The trial court aptly summarized the issues framed by the pleadings with reference to the first claim as follows:
'Finally, the plaintiffs allege the threat of a multiplicity of suits and allege the pendency of two suits against them attempting to enforce the provisions of the act and the marketing order in which injustice and penal relief is sought, and pray for the entry of declaratory judgment determining and declaring that the Marketing Act of 1939, as amended, is unconstitutional and void, being violative of both the United States and State Constitutions.
'For Answer to the Amended Complaint the defendants deny that the Marketing Act of 1939, as amended, is unconstitutional, null or void in the particulars alleged, or at all; allege that the statute is fully effective, that the plaintiffs will in fact benefit from compliance with said marketing orders, and otherwise admit each and every other allegation of the first claim. * * *'
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered in this case are voluminous and indicate a very thorough study on the part of the court concerning the issues of law which are involved. The ultimate conclusion of the trial court was that '* * * as a matter of law the Marketing Act of 1939, as amended, is, in the particulars hereinabove stated, unconstitutional and void. * * *' The court entered an injunction enjoining and restraining the defendants from enforcing or attempting to enforce the Act.
We first address ourselves to consideration of the principal ground upon which the trial court reached the above stated conclusion. The Conclusions of Law which it entered points up the crucial question in the following way:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons
... ... Supreme Court of California ... November 27, 2000 ... 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 474 Brian C. Leighton, Clovis; Mayer, Brown & Platt, Michael W. McConnell, Chicago, IL., and Sharon Swingle, Washington, Dist. of Columbia, for Plaintiff and Appellant ... Sibille (1945) 207 La. 877, 22 So.2d 202; Wickham v. Trapani (N.Y.App.Div.1966) 26 A.D.2d 216, 272 N.Y.S.2d 6; see also Swisher v. Brown (1965) 157 Colo. 378, 402 P.2d 621, 628 [noting that 21 states had upheld similar marketing acts].) Although amicus curiae participation in ... ...
-
People ex rel. Dunbar v. Gym of America, Inc.
... ... Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 402 P.2d 621; Cottrell Clothing Co. v. Teets, 139 Colo. 558, 343 P.2d [177 Colo. 112] 1016; In re Interrogatories, Supra ... ...
-
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Nonprofit Corp. v. Hickenlooper
... ... People v. Holmes, 959 P.2d 406, 40910 (Colo.1998) (quoting Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 388, 402 P.2d 621, 626 (1965) ). 41 We disagree that H.B. 131229 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to ... ...
-
Cottrell v. City and County of Denver
... ... 113, 570 P.2d 518 (1977); accord, Asphalt Paving Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 162 Colo. 254, 425 P.2d 289 (1967); Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 402 P.2d 621 (1965). This has been labeled the "standards" test for determining the propriety of a legislative delegation ... ...
-
Land Use Legislation: H.b. 1034 and H.b. 1041
...151 Colo. 235, 380 P.2d 34 (1963); Sapero v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 90 Colo. 568, 11 P.2d 555 (1932). 68. Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 402 P.2d 621, 627 (1965). 69. Asphalt Paving Co. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Summit County, 162 Colo. 254, 425 P.2d 289 (1967). 70. C.R.S. 1973......
-
Discovery and Judicial Review in State Administrative Practice
...Laws, Ch. 293, pp. 1134-35.) 27. C.R.S. 1973, § 24-4-103(4). (1977 Colo. Sess. Laws, Ch. 294, p. 1136.) 28. See, e.g., Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 387-389, 402 P.2d 621, 625-627 (1965); supra, note 16; Pierce v. Industrial Commission, 195 Colo. 10, 13, 576 P.2d 1012, 1013 (1978). 29. 1......
-
Attorney General's Opinions
...the Colorado Constitution for a valid delegation of authority by the General Assembly to an administrative agency. In Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 402 P.2d 626 (1965), the Colorado Supreme Court stated the test for determining whether a legislative delegation of authority is proper as f......
-
Local Government Exactions from Developers After Beaver Meadows
...Asphalt Paving Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, 162 Colo. 254, 425 P.2d 289 (1967); Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 402 P.2d 621 (1965); Cimarron Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, 193 Colo. 164, 563 P.2d 946 (1977); Bethlehem Evangelical Lut......