Bonham v. City of Aurora
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Knauss
In the trial court plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs and defendant in error was defendant. We will refer to the parties as they there appeared.
Plaintiffs, claiming that they were “aggrieved persons” with in the meaning of C.R.S. ’53,139-11-6, instituted this action to declare void an ordinance passed by the Council of Aurora, Colorado, annexing certain territory of Hoffman Town to the City of Aurora, pursuant to C.R.S. ’53, 139-11-3. In a second claim they sought an order calling an election to have the annexation submitted to the voters in Hoffman Town, under a counter-petition filed with…
2Cited by3 opinions
- City of Aurora v. WebbColorado Court of Appeals · 1978
- Stuckman v. KasalSupreme Court of Colorado · 1965
- BUSINESS & PRODUCT PROMOTION, INC. v. East Tincup, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1964