Coopersmith v. City and County of Denver
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sutton
We will refer to plaintiffs in error as plaintiffs, or individually by name, and will refer to defendants in error, who are the City and County of Denver, various public officials, a commission and others named, as the City.
Plaintiffs in the trial court and by this writ of error, in a class action, have challenged the validity of submitted ordinance No. 137, Series 1962, which was an amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver which created a joint department of safety and excise. Stated in its broadest terms, plaintiffs object to the ordinance in question because it requires…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People ex rel. Elder v. SoursSupreme Court of Colorado · 1903
- Boyle v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- People ex rel. Moore v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Tower v. TowerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961
- Miller v. ClarkSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Cottrell v. City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
- City and County of Denver v. StateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
- Colorado Ass'n of Public Employees v. Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Colorado · 1991
- Eagan v. SpellmanWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Department of Institutions, Division for Developmental Disabilities, Wheat Ridge Regional Center v. KinchenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.