Baber v. Central Bank

Supreme Court of Colorado

Baber v. Central Bank

299 P.2d 116, 134 Colo. 54, 1956 Colo. LEXIS 203

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJuly 2, 1956

DocketNo. 17,936

StatusPublished

This text of 299 P.2d 116 (Baber v. Central Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baber v. Central Bank, 299 P.2d 116, 134 Colo. 54, 1956 Colo. LEXIS 203 (Colo. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action rests on facts identical to those presented in the case of Brisnehan v. Central Bank and Trust Company which has been disposed of by an opinion of this Court announced on this date.

Plaintiff in error Baber contends that the record in connection with his claim presents a question not involved in the Brisnehan case, in that under the provi[55]*55sions of section 21 of the ordinance he was eligible to become a member of the plan notwithstanding the fact that he failed to elect to do so within sixty days.

We cannot agree with this argument, and we believe that this cause is in all respects controlled by the opinion in the case of Tom Brisnehan v. The Central Bank and Trust Company, supra. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action rests on facts identical to those presented in the case of Brisnehan v. Central Bank and Trust Company which has been disposed of by an opinion of this Court announced on this date.

Plaintiff in error Baber contends that the record in connection with his claim presents a question not involved in the Brisnehan case, in that under the provi[55]*55sions of section 21 of the ordinance he was eligible to become a member of the plan notwithstanding the fact that he failed to elect to do so within sixty days.

We cannot agree with this argument, and we believe that this cause is in all respects controlled by the opinion in the case of Tom Brisnehan v. The Central Bank and Trust Company, supra. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 P.2d 116, 134 Colo. 54, 1956 Colo. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baber-v-central-bank-colo-1956.