Hayes v. State

Supreme Court of Colorado

Hayes v. State

498 P.2d 1119, 178 Colo. 447, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 860

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJune 12, 1972

Docket24570

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 498 P.2d 1119 (Hayes v. State) 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

Hayes v. State, 498 P.2d 1119, 178 Colo. 447, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 860 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE DAY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*449 On May 1, 1968, the Colorado Ground Water Commission entered an order designating a 350 square mile area in east central El Paso County as a ground water basin pursuant to 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 148-18-5. Appellants own wells and decreed water rights within the area and protested its designation as a ground water basin as defined in 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 148-18-2(3).

Being unsuccessful before the Water Commission, the protestants appealed to the district court, and a de novo hearing was held pursuant to 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 148-18-14. The lower court upheld the designation by the Commission. We affirm.

At oral argument of this case, counsel for appellants admitted that, in reality, there was only one issue to be resolved by this court, namely, whether there was evidence to support the finding made by the lower court in pertinent part as follows:

“The Court finds and determines from the evidence adduced before the Ground Water Commission and the testimony and exhibits at the trial in this court clearly [sic] establish [1] that the ground water herein involved in its natural course would not be available to and required for the fulfillment of decreed surface rights; [2] that such ground water is not adjacent to a continuously flowing natural stream wherein ground water withdrawals have constituted the principal water useage [sic] for at least fifteen years preceding January 1, 1965,* * *.”

The general rule is that the evidence will be viewed by this court in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment. Considerations of credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are for the trial court. With these principles in mind, if there is any ¿vidence to support lower court finding, it will be upheld. See Bennett v. Accounts, Inc., 155 Colo. 461, 395 P.2d 225. In the instant case, there is such evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

MR. JUSTICE DAY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*449 On May 1, 1968, the Colorado Ground Water Commission entered an order designating a 350 square mile area in east central El Paso County as a ground water basin pursuant to 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 148-18-5. Appellants own wells and decreed water rights within the area and protested its designation as a ground water basin as defined in 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 148-18-2(3).

Being unsuccessful before the Water Commission, the protestants appealed to the district court, and a de novo hearing was held pursuant to 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 148-18-14. The lower court upheld the designation by the Commission. We affirm.

At oral argument of this case, counsel for appellants admitted that, in reality, there was only one issue to be resolved by this court, namely, whether there was evidence to support the finding made by the lower court in pertinent part as follows:

“The Court finds and determines from the evidence adduced before the Ground Water Commission and the testimony and exhibits at the trial in this court clearly [sic] establish [1] that the ground water herein involved in its natural course would not be available to and required for the fulfillment of decreed surface rights; [2] that such ground water is not adjacent to a continuously flowing natural stream wherein ground water withdrawals have constituted the principal water useage [sic] for at least fifteen years preceding January 1, 1965,* * *.”

The general rule is that the evidence will be viewed by this court in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment. Considerations of credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are for the trial court. With these principles in mind, if there is any ¿vidence to support lower court finding, it will be upheld. See Bennett v. Accounts, Inc., 155 Colo. 461, 395 P.2d 225. In the instant case, there is such evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 P.2d 1119, 178 Colo. 447, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-colo-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack