Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Barber v. Ritter

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 3, 2008No. 07SC373Published

1Concurring in the judgmentJustice Eid

Petitioners claim in this case that monies in special cash funds were transferred into the general fund in violation of Amendment 1. Yet it is undisputed that not a single petitioner actually paid into the special cash funds that they allege were improperly depleted. Because the only injury alleged in the suit is the improper depletion of the special cash funds, petitioners cannot satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of the standing inquiry. The majority's ruling-which permits petitioners to pursue their claim under Amendment 1, albeit rejecting it on the merits-stretches the concept of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Lance v. CoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Conrad v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
  4. Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  5. People Ex Rel. Salazar v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API