Court Opinion

ID: 9631943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:56:26.662583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:04.505615
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
dissenting:
I cannot accede to the holding of the majority opinion, that we are now dealing with a dead controversy; hence, I must dissent.
When does a case become moot? In my opinion, a case properly can be said to be moot only when it does not rest upon existing facts or rights. If any facts or rights are involved, the case'should be ours for determination.
*583As comprehensive a statement on this question of mootness as can be found is that contained in the case of Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. Frankfather, 123 Colo. 77, 255 P. (2d) 1035, 39 A.L.R. (2d) 146: “There is no moot case or moot- question where there are substantial rights or issues controverted in the case, and it is the duty of this court to review on writ of error any judgment of a trial court where substantial rights or issues are involved, provided the defeated party seeks timely relief thereby. If, however, there is nothing to be determined except an abstract question which is divorced from existing facts or rights or rests upon a pretended controversy, when in fact there is really none, or where a judgment which, when rendered, cannot have any effect upon an existing controversy, then the question is moot; otherwise the question does not become moot, and this court is under a duty to determine issues when properly presented.”
The property in question was located in a district zoned as Agricultural Two, under the terms of which a temporary permit might be granted for the operation of an aggregate plant and commercial gravel pits. An application was made under this zoning law and denied by the Board of Adjustment of Adams County on June 16, 1955. On November 15, 1955, at another hearing, a permit was granted. For a number of reasons this permit appears to be invalid.
An action in the nature of certiorari was then filed in the District Court, but shortly before the filing thereof the zoning law was amended, and under the terms of the amendment the district was rezoned as Industrial One. The amended zoning law did not permit the operation of an aggregate plant and commercial gravel pits as a matter of right; it provided for such operation only upon the granting of a special permit.
In the certiorari proceeding the amendment of the zoning law was pleaded as a defense as creating a moot, case. It was not asserted in this defense that an appli*584cation was made thereunder for a special permit, and that said application was granted. Plaintiffs in error in their brief advised the court that a special permit under the amended law was obtained; the defendants in error in their brief deny that a special permit was obtained. There is no evidence before this court on this disputed fact. Although it appears to be the rule that allegations, supported by affidavit or evidence, stating that the question before the court had become moot because of changed circumstances, can with propriety be set forth in proceedings before the Supreme Court, even where review is sought of a case in the nature of certiorari, Cliff v. Bilett, 125 Colo. 138, 241 P. (2d) 437; Lehrman Mercantile Co. v. Ireland, 93 Colo. 209, 24 P. (2d) 750, such cannot be invoked in this case.
Without this important element in the case — the issuance of a special permit under the amended zoning law — -we have a case which rests upon existing facts and rights which remove the taint of mootness from the case. The mere fact that a special permit may be sought and may be granted is not sufficient to establish a moot case; and we have no authority to assume that a special permit had issued. Even though a special permit had issued, we cannot take judicial notice of such fact. West v. Keith, 154 Wash. 682, 283 Pac. 198, 31 C.J.S. §. 41, 606.
In such view of the case it appears to me that Inland is operating under the original permit. The invalidity of this permit is a substantial present issue requiring disposition. Where a permit may be granted under the law after a hearing, and such permit is authorized in violation of the law, and such law is later amended under the terms of which amendment a permit may be authorized, the mere amendment of such law does not create a moot question, but there must be a showing made that a permit was issued under the amended law in order to create a moot situation. Cliff v. Bilett, supra. To hold otherwise under such circumstances would deny due process to these defendants in error.