Loredo v. Denver Public School District No. 1

Colorado Court of Appeals

Loredo v. Denver Public School District No. 1

827 P.2d 633, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 315, 1992 Colo. App. LEXIS 48, 1992 WL 39490

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

Docket91CA1634

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 827 P.2d 633 (Loredo v. Denver Public School District No. 1) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loredo v. Denver Public School District No. 1, 827 P.2d 633, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 315, 1992 Colo. App. LEXIS 48, 1992 WL 39490 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge TURSI.

In this tenured teacher dismissal case, this court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file within the time limit prescribed by § 22-63-302(10), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.). We now discharge the order to show cause and accept the appeal as timely filed.

Effective July 1, 1990, the General Assembly repealed the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967 and reenacted it as the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990. The 1967 Act had provided that a teacher could obtain judicial review of an order of dismissal by filing a notice of appeal within forty-five days of the order. Section 22-63-117(11), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 9); § 24-4-106, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A). The 1990 Act provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days of the order of dismissal. Section 22-63-302(10)(a), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.).

Charges were filed in this case in June 1990, before the effective date of the 1990 Act. The order of dismissal was entered after the effective date of the new law. Thus, the issue is whether the procedural provisions of the reenacted law should be applied to actions pending on its effective date.

Unless a contrary intent is expressed in the statute, procedural changes are applicable to existing causes of action and not merely to those which accrue in the future. Suley v. Board of Education, 633 P.2d 482 (Colo.App.1981).

Here, however, a contrary intent is expressed in § 22-63-302(10)(a) of the reenacted statute by its specific reference to dismissal “pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section,” i.e., § 22-63-302(9), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.).

However, in this proceeding, the hearing was conducted by an administrative law judge pursuant to § 22-63-117, C.R.S. *634 (1988 Repl.Vol. 9), rather than § 22-63-802(9) and the order of dismissal was entered pursuant to § 22-63-117. Accordingly, the conditions for application of the reenacted statute are not present, and we determine that the period for appealing the order of dismissal is the forty-five days established in the 1967 Act. Thus, the appeal was timely filed.

Order to show cause discharged.

HUME and ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur.

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

Opinion by

Judge TURSI.

In this tenured teacher dismissal case, this court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file within the time limit prescribed by § 22-63-302(10), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.). We now discharge the order to show cause and accept the appeal as timely filed.

Effective July 1, 1990, the General Assembly repealed the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967 and reenacted it as the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990. The 1967 Act had provided that a teacher could obtain judicial review of an order of dismissal by filing a notice of appeal within forty-five days of the order. Section 22-63-117(11), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 9); § 24-4-106, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A). The 1990 Act provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days of the order of dismissal. Section 22-63-302(10)(a), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.).

Charges were filed in this case in June 1990, before the effective date of the 1990 Act. The order of dismissal was entered after the effective date of the new law. Thus, the issue is whether the procedural provisions of the reenacted law should be applied to actions pending on its effective date.

Unless a contrary intent is expressed in the statute, procedural changes are applicable to existing causes of action and not merely to those which accrue in the future. Suley v. Board of Education, 633 P.2d 482 (Colo.App.1981).

Here, however, a contrary intent is expressed in § 22-63-302(10)(a) of the reenacted statute by its specific reference to dismissal “pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section,” i.e., § 22-63-302(9), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.).

However, in this proceeding, the hearing was conducted by an administrative law judge pursuant to § 22-63-117, C.R.S. *634 (1988 Repl.Vol. 9), rather than § 22-63-802(9) and the order of dismissal was entered pursuant to § 22-63-117. Accordingly, the conditions for application of the reenacted statute are not present, and we determine that the period for appealing the order of dismissal is the forty-five days established in the 1967 Act. Thus, the appeal was timely filed.

Order to show cause discharged.

HUME and ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 P.2d 633, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 315, 1992 Colo. App. LEXIS 48, 1992 WL 39490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loredo-v-denver-public-school-district-no-1-coloctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack