Cover v. City & County of Denver

Supreme Court of Colorado

Cover v. City & County of Denver

211 P.2d 830, 120 Colo. 451, 1949 Colo. LEXIS 231

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedSeptember 19, 1949

DocketNo. 16,230.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 211 P.2d 830 (Cover v. City & County of Denver) 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

Cover v. City & County of Denver, 211 P.2d 830, 120 Colo. 451, 1949 Colo. LEXIS 231 (Colo. 1949).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This inquiry has to do with plaintiff in error’s application to the city council of the City and County of Denver for a liquor license. The distinguished trial jurist, holding that the record here parallels that of [452]*452Reed v. Blakley, et al., 115 Colo. 559, 176 P. (2d) 681, on authority thereof adjudged adversely to plaintiff in error. We are in accord with the trial court’s findings as to the factual situation, and since we are not disposed to depart from the doctrine of the cited case, order of affirmance is in order.

We are not unmindful, indeed, we are appreciative, of the earnestness of counsel in behalf of plaintiff in error. His brief, which has had our careful attention, is exhaustive, and, even as was the brief by the same counsel in Reed v. Blakley, is not a little appealing. But, as in the earlier inquiry, so here, we think that the manager of safety and excise, precisely as we said thére, and “only that official, and not the city council, has authority to act upon applications of the nature of the one here under consideration.”

We pause to note, that, while the city council voted unanimously that it was without authority to grant the license sought by plaintiff in error, six of the members thereof, namely, Blakley, Fresques, Harrington, Mapel, Marranzino and Stafford, appearing by private counsel, Wilbur Rocchio, Esquire, emphasizing their contention that the city council has the requisite authority in the premises, joins in plaintiff in error’s brief. Again following the Reed-Blakley case, we note Mr. Rocchio’s appearance as that of counsel similarly appearing in that case.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Mr'. Justice Hays and Mr. Justice Alter concur.

Mr. Justice Moore specially concurs.

Mr. Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Holland dissent.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This inquiry has to do with plaintiff in error’s application to the city council of the City and County of Denver for a liquor license. The distinguished trial jurist, holding that the record here parallels that of [452]*452Reed v. Blakley, et al., 115 Colo. 559, 176 P. (2d) 681, on authority thereof adjudged adversely to plaintiff in error. We are in accord with the trial court’s findings as to the factual situation, and since we are not disposed to depart from the doctrine of the cited case, order of affirmance is in order.

We are not unmindful, indeed, we are appreciative, of the earnestness of counsel in behalf of plaintiff in error. His brief, which has had our careful attention, is exhaustive, and, even as was the brief by the same counsel in Reed v. Blakley, is not a little appealing. But, as in the earlier inquiry, so here, we think that the manager of safety and excise, precisely as we said thére, and “only that official, and not the city council, has authority to act upon applications of the nature of the one here under consideration.”

We pause to note, that, while the city council voted unanimously that it was without authority to grant the license sought by plaintiff in error, six of the members thereof, namely, Blakley, Fresques, Harrington, Mapel, Marranzino and Stafford, appearing by private counsel, Wilbur Rocchio, Esquire, emphasizing their contention that the city council has the requisite authority in the premises, joins in plaintiff in error’s brief. Again following the Reed-Blakley case, we note Mr. Rocchio’s appearance as that of counsel similarly appearing in that case.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Mr'. Justice Hays and Mr. Justice Alter concur.

Mr. Justice Moore specially concurs.

Mr. Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Holland dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 P.2d 830, 120 Colo. 451, 1949 Colo. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cover-v-city-county-of-denver-colo-1949.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack