Court Opinion

ID: 9542229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:32:08.597334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:09.552554
License: Public Domain

Justice KIRSHBAUM
concurring and specially concurring:
I join in the majority’s opinion with the exception of that portion of Part II thereof applying our decision in Miller v. Clark, 144 Colo. 431, 432, 356 P.2d 965, 966 (1960), to the circumstances of this case. Assuming, arguendo, that the broad dictum in Miller in fact establishes a unique exception to traditional principles of standing for purposes of participation in direct appeals of trial court judgments,1 neither the decision nor the sentence is applicable to Kaiser’s efforts to participate as a party in this certiorari proceeding. The majority in effect recognizes this distinction. Maj. op. at 1222 n. 10. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Kaiser’s failure to file a petition for rehearing with the court of appeals precludes it from participating in this certiorari proceeding. Maj. op. at 1223; § 13-1-108(1), 6A C.R.S. (1987); C.A.R. 52(b); see Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419, 428-29 (Colo.1991). Whatever its vitality, our dictum in Miller is in my view irrelevant to the circumstances here present.
LOHR, J., joins in this concurrence and special concurrence.

. See State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Olson, 687 P.2d 429, 435 (Colo.1984); Wimberly v. Et-tenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 168, 570 P.2d 535, 539 (Colo.1977). In Miller, we held that a guardian ad litem appointed by the probate court to represent " ‘all persons under legal disability' ” in an intestacy proceeding did not have standing to prosecute an appeal of the probate court’s judgment. Miller, 144 Colo, at 432, 356 P.2d at 966. In so doing, a three-judge department of this court made the following observations:
One of two tests must be met before a party may prosecute a writ of error to this court. He must either be a party to the action or he must be a person substantially aggrieved by the disposition of the case in the lower court. As was stated in Wilson v. Board of Regents, 46 Colo. 100, 102 Pac. 1088:
"... Appeals are not allowed for the mere purpose of delay, or to present purely abstract legal questions, however important or interesting, but to correct errors injuriously affecting the rights of some party to litigation. Only parties aggrieved may appeal. The word ‘aggrieved’ refers to a substantial grievance....”
Id. These comments are at best inconsistent with the quoted statement from Wilson v. Board of Regents, 46 Colo. 100, 100, 102 Pac. 1088, 1089 (1909), upon which they appear to have been based. In Wilson we referred only to aggrieved parties, not aggrieved persons. Furthermore, the two sentences in Miller are inconsistent. The first sentence states a test applicable only to a “party” who seeks to prosecute a writ of error. The second sentence commences with the pronoun "he," which can refer only to the precedent noun "party," but then refers to either a party or a person.