Court Opinion

ID: 9865256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:29:16.663227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:11.970054
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Burke
dissenting: I regret my inability to agree with the majority. I think the entire evidence before the trial court supports its decree. The opinion does not touch that important question. If my view is correct that decree ought to stand for “the ends of justice will be thereby promoted.” The opinion in the Huppe Case makes no reference to the statute. By no known *495rule then, can it be held to construe that statute. The statute confers the right to grant re-arguments and reviews upon the district court only. If a motion under it was addressed to this court it was filed in the wrong forum. If this court entertained such a motion it reached beyond its jurisdiction. If our decree in the Huppe Case was not ordered entered under the provisions of the adjudication act we had no power to order it. If it was then it is covered by the statute in question. If, as the majority opinion seems to hold, “good cause” as used in the statute is limited to causes which would theretofore justify a new trial, then the only effect of the statute is to extend the time for such motions in adjudication proceedings to two years and there is much superfluous language in the act. Questions settled by judgments do not become res adjudicata until the judgments become final. The legislature, not this court, is empowered to say when and under what circumstances a judgment becomes final. People v. Richmond, 16 Colo. 274, 283, 26 Pac. 929; Dismukes v. Stokes, 41 Miss. 430, 433. It may even permit new trials as a matter of right without cause and formerly did so in this state. L. 1887, p. 177 § 272.
Under the statute here in question judgments in water adjudications do not become final as against the statute in question until two years from the date of their entry.
No question of the application of the statute to the proceedings in the Huppe Case prior to that decision, or its application to parties not served or appearing, is involved in the instant case. Neither is the question of the method of acquiring jurisdiction in adjudication proceedings, nor the application of the term “good cause” to points of law. All these portions of the opinion are irrelevant.
I think the judgment should be affirmed, and am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Denison and Mr. Justice Shea-for join in this dissent.