Opinion ID: 1288302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: R.C.P. 106(a)(4) provides, in relevant part:

Text: (a) ... In the following cases relief may be obtained in the district court.... .... (4) Where any governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law: (I) Review shall be limited to a determination of whether the body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the body or officer. .... (V) The proceedings before or decision of the body or officer may be stayed, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. .... (VII) A defendant required to certify a record shall give written notice to all parties, simultaneously with filing, of the date of filing the record with the clerk. The plaintiff shall file, and serve on all parties, an opening brief within forty days after the date on which the record was filed. If no record is requested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall file an opening brief within forty days after the defendant has served its answer upon the plaintiff. The defendant may file and serve an answer brief within thirty days after service of the plaintiff's brief, and the plaintiff may file and serve a reply brief to the defendant's answer brief within fifteen days after service of the answer brief. (VIII) The court may accelerate or continue any action which, in the discretion of the court, requires acceleration or continuance. After examining the adequacy of the procedural safeguards provided by the Ordinance and the Code, the majority concludes: C.R.C.P. 106 and the Ordinance provide adequate safeguards to ensure that any impermissible prior restraint on a particular applicant's protected rights of free speech may be remedied promptly by judicial intervention.... The provisions of C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(VIII) specifically authorize a district court to accelerate or continue any action, and, as indicated, C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(V) authorizes a district court to stay any decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a license. These provisions are adequate to withstand the plaintiffs' facial challenge to the Ordinance. Maj. op. at 284. I disagree because the mechanisms provided by the Ordinance and the Code do not provide the appropriate standard of appellate review and do not constitute prompt judicial review of constitutionally protected speech.