Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Ryals v. City of Englewood
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided January 25, 2016No. Supreme Court Case 14SA84Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Hood
T48 I agree with the majority that this case presents an issue of mixed state and local concern and therefore concur in that aspect of the majority opinion. I disagree, however, with the majority's analysis of and conclusion concerning preemption. Like the federal district court, I would decide this case under the rubric of operational conflict. Because the effect of local laws like Ordinance 34-banning all sex offenders from residing in entire home-rule cities-would materially impede the state's comprehensive regulatory scheme for sex offenders, and because section 16-22-108(l)(@)(I), CRS.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. NietoSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- Board of County Commissioners v. Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Colorado Mining Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners of Summit CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 2009
- People v. CarbajalColorado Court of Appeals · 2012
- Webb v. City of Black HawkSupreme Court of Colorado · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.