Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Committee for Better Health Care for All Colorado Citizens v. Meyer

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 20, 1992No. 90SA440Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Mullarkey

The majority gives a broad construction to the notarization requirement which the legislature imposed on initiative petitions by the 1989 statutory amendments, and, as so construed, upholds it. In addition, the majority also affirms the lower court’s order which approved the Secretary of State’s (Secretary’s) rejection of several petitions on the grounds that the circulators did not sign the petition affidavits on the same day they were notarized. Because I believe the Secretary’s rejection of the petitions was erroneous, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion.

The…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Urbish v. LammSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  2. Yenter v. BakerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1952
  3. Question Submitted by the United States Court of Claims v. United StatesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
  4. Otani v. District Court Ex Rel. Twenty-First Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
  5. Walker v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896

2 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