Court Opinion

ID: 9552886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:18:50.803644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:17.804711
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Clark
specially concurring.
With respect to the foregoing opinion I concur in the result because of my firm conviction that under the present amended statute, section 4, chapter 163, ’35 C.S.A., the judgment of the county court declaring the incorporation of the Town of Greenwood Village to be complete, is definitely a judicial act, as distinguished from a ministerial function; that the county court is the proper forum, within which one feeling aggrieved should file his protest, or otherwise attack the proceedings had in the county court, in such manner as to him might be deemed advisable; that in the event of decision by the county court adversely to such protest, review thereof might be had upon writ of error from this court; and that the jurisdiction of the county court; being prescribed by the statute, and its judgment being final and re viewable, may not be collaterally attacked by action brought in any other tribunal, or in manner otherwise than as herein-above outlined.
The principal distinction, to my mind, between this case and that of Norton v. People, ex rel., 102 Colo. 489, 81 P. (2d) 393, is that, in the instant ca'se the county court of Arapahoe county actually entered its formal judgment in manner as contemplated by the statute, while in the Norton case no final judgment was entered in the county court.
The author of the opinion to which this special concurrence is attached, adds to the issue, as I-have herein discussed it, three “other questions”—(1) as to the first, concerning quo warranto proceedings, confined and limited as it is in its statement, I am in agreement. (2) On the second question holding that the original petition for incorporation became functus officio upon the holding of *355the election, and that it may not thereafter be attacked, I am not in agreement with the views expressed in the opinion. (3) On the third question presented, I am in general, though not specifically, in full agreement with the opinion.
My personal view of the whole situation, however, is that in the case now before us we are not called upon to determine any of the three questions, and it is my belief that we should not do so unless and until such time as a case may come before us wherein it is required that said matters be settled in order to reach a proper conclusion.
To the extent that the opinion is in accord with the views which I have herein expressed, I concur. To the. remainder thereof I respectfully dissent.
Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Knauss concur in this opinion.