Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Meier v. Schooley

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 10, 1961No. 19655Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Sutton

specially concurring:

In so far as the majority opinion is an affirmance based upon a failure to name the parties defendant required under Rule 57 (j), R.C.P. Colorado, I concur therein. And, in so far as Farmers’ Dairy League, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 112 Colo. 399, 149 P. (2d) 370, and Colorado State Board of Examiners of Architects v. Louis E. Rico, 132 Colo. 437, 289 P. (2d) 162, have determined that one cannot enjoin the enforcement of a penal *248ordinance, I must bow to the rule of stare decisis, for as Mr. Justice Moore said in his special concurrence in Cover v. Denver, 120…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Colorado State Board of Examiners of Architects v. RicoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1955
  2. Farmers' Dairy League, Inc. v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1944
  3. Cover v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API