Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pueblo v. Grand Carniolian Slovenian Catholic Union of United States

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 19, 1960No. 18794Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Frantz

specially concurring:

I would briefly state my reasons for specially concurring. These reasons involve the nature and purpose of assessments for improvements and of the fund created by the legislation establishing the entity, whether an improvement district, irrigation district, or other similar agency.

We are not dealing here with a public fund in its true sense. “The term.‘public funds’ means funds belonging to the state.” Pensioners Ass’n v. Davis, 112 Colo. 535, 150 P. (2d.) 974. The Refunding Improvement Bond Fund, so described in the ordinance under consideration, is not a fund belonging…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
  2. City & County of Denver v. TihenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925
  3. Pensioners Protective Ass'n v. DavisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1944
  4. Sanborn v. City of BoulderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  5. Stern v. State Board of Dental ExaminersWashington Supreme Court · 1908

5 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