Court Opinion

ID: 9550052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:28:28.343964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:15.273882
License: Public Domain

Justice MULLARKEY
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the court’s opinion holding that the plaintiff’s replevin action in this case is barred by the Governmental Immunity Act. The plaintiff sought damages and not only repossession of property allegedly wrongfully detained by Denver. From a fair reading of the complaint, this action lies or could lie in tort, section 24-10-106, 10A C.R.S. (1988), and for that reason is barred by the Governmental Immunity Act. Of more concern to me is the majority’s disposition of the court of appeals’ constitutional claims analysis. I agree with the majority’s conclusion in Part V.A. that no constitutional claims were properly before the court of appeals. Such claims, then, are not properly before us, and certiorari should be dismissed on the constitutional claims as improvidently granted. Accordingly, I do not join in the majority’s consideration of the constitutional claims, principally in Parts V.B. and V.C. of the majority opinion. I would leave these important issues for another day when they are properly presented.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice ROVIRA joins in this concurrence and dissent.