In re Senate Resolution No. 9

Supreme Court of Colorado

In re Senate Resolution No. 9

548 P.2d 602, 190 Colo. 452, 1976 Colo. LEXIS 823

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedApril 16, 1976

DocketNo. 27181

StatusPublished

This text of 548 P.2d 602 (In re Senate Resolution No. 9) 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

In re Senate Resolution No. 9, 548 P.2d 602, 190 Colo. 452, 1976 Colo. LEXIS 823 (Colo. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The court respectfully declines to render an opinion answering the interrogatories propounded by Senate Resolution No. 9 of the Second Regular Session of the 50th General Assembly of Colorado. Our reasons are as follows:

We know of no case in which this court has answered interrogatories concerning the validity or construction of a statute which has already been adopted. “[Legislative questions must be connected with pending legislation.” In the Matter of the Constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 65, 12 Colo. 466, 21 P. 478 (1889). See also In re House Resolution No. 12, 88 Colo. 569, 298 P. 960 (1931); In re Interrogatories of the House of Representatives, 62 Colo. 188, 162 P. 1144 (1916); In re Senate Resolution, 54 Colo. 262, 130 P. 333 (1913); In re Senate Bill No. 416, 45 Colo. 394, 101 P. 410 (1909); and In re University Fund, 18 Colo. 398, 33 P. 415 (1893). We conclude that we should not depart from precedent.

[453]*453Difficult issues are involved which should be considered only in an adversary setting. See In re Interrogatories Propounded by the Senate Concerning House Bill 456, 131 Colo. 389, 281 P.2d 1013 (1955); and In re Interrogatories of the Governor, 111 Colo. 406, 141 P.2d 899 (1943).

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE and MR. JUSTICE DAY do not participate.

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

PER CURIAM

The court respectfully declines to render an opinion answering the interrogatories propounded by Senate Resolution No. 9 of the Second Regular Session of the 50th General Assembly of Colorado. Our reasons are as follows:

We know of no case in which this court has answered interrogatories concerning the validity or construction of a statute which has already been adopted. “[Legislative questions must be connected with pending legislation.” In the Matter of the Constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 65, 12 Colo. 466, 21 P. 478 (1889). See also In re House Resolution No. 12, 88 Colo. 569, 298 P. 960 (1931); In re Interrogatories of the House of Representatives, 62 Colo. 188, 162 P. 1144 (1916); In re Senate Resolution, 54 Colo. 262, 130 P. 333 (1913); In re Senate Bill No. 416, 45 Colo. 394, 101 P. 410 (1909); and In re University Fund, 18 Colo. 398, 33 P. 415 (1893). We conclude that we should not depart from precedent.

[453]*453Difficult issues are involved which should be considered only in an adversary setting. See In re Interrogatories Propounded by the Senate Concerning House Bill 456, 131 Colo. 389, 281 P.2d 1013 (1955); and In re Interrogatories of the Governor, 111 Colo. 406, 141 P.2d 899 (1943).

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE and MR. JUSTICE DAY do not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 P.2d 602, 190 Colo. 452, 1976 Colo. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-senate-resolution-no-9-colo-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack