Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Genuine classes have the potential for future applicability.

Text: In applying this analysis to the challenged statute, the Canister court determined that the statute created an illusory class and was prohibited special legislation. Id. at 385. In determining whether the statute created a real or illusory class[,] the court reviewed several Colorado cases that had concluded the legislation at issue created genuine classes. Id. at 383. The Canister court observed that a common characteristic of those cases was the [p]otential future applicability of the challenged statutes. Id. at 384; see also Darrow v. People ex. rel Norris, 8 Colo. 417, 8 P. 661 (1885) (determining that a statute creating a superior court in a town or city with 25,000 inhabitants was not special legislation despite it only applying to Denver at the time of enactment, because the legislature clearly intended that it apply to other towns and cities in the future, and the statute was unlimited as to time in its operation); Interrogatory, 814 P.2d 875 (determining that a statute providing incentives to encourage United Airlines to construct and operate a maintenance facility in Colorado did not create an illusory class because it contained no time limit and another aviation-related business could meet the statutory criteria in the future and receive the same benefits provided by the statute); Am, Water Dev., Inc. v. City of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352 (Colo.1994) (determining that Colorado's natural surface stream legislation was not special legislation despite only applying to two stream systems at the time of enactment because it had an indefinite period of application and it may be found to apply to other streams in the future); City of Greenwood Village v. Petitioners for the Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 (Colo.2000) (determining that a statute that held an annexation proceeding in abeyance pending a conflicting incorporation proceeding, which involved a proposed city of over 75,000 inhabitants, was not unconstitutional special legislation because it was generic in its application, [was] applicable to other foreseeable situations, [and did] not deal with a class of one).