Western Pav. Const. Co. v. District Ct., Jefferson Cty.

515 P.2d 465, 183 Colo. 174, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 612
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedNovember 5, 1973
Docket26066
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 515 P.2d 465 (Western Pav. Const. Co. v. District Ct., Jefferson Cty.) 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
Western Pav. Const. Co. v. District Ct., Jefferson Cty., 515 P.2d 465, 183 Colo. 174, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 612 (Colo. 1973).

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE DAY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding under C.A.R. 21, seeking relief in the nature of prohibition. The basis for the petition is the failure of the respondent City of Golden to join petitioners Western Paving Construction Co. and North Table Mountain Corporation in a petition for certiorari to review the action of the Jefferson County Board of Adjustment in issuing a special permit to extract rock, sand and gravel. Petitioners are the holders of that special permit. The cause proceeded to judgment without the joinder of petitioners, and the respondent court ordered the special permit revoked. Not being parties to the proceeding, petitioners sought relief *176 in this court.

In Hennigh v. County Commissioners, 168 Colo. 128, 450 P.2d 73 (1969), we held that one whose application for a rezoning is challenged in court is an indispensable party to that proceeding. In Hidden Lake Development Co. v. District Court, 183 Colo. 168, 515 P.2d 632, we held that the failure to join an indispensable party rendered the judgment a nullity. For the reasons more completely discussed in Hidden Lake, the respondent court could not enter a valid judgment to deprive the petitioners of their permit without the presence of Western Paving Construction Co. and North Table Mountain Corporation. The judgment and the order revoking the special permit are of no legal force. The judgment must, therefore, be set aside. Respondent court is directed to vacate its order revoking the special permit and to dismiss the action.

The rule is made absolute.

MR. JUSTICE HODGES does not participate.

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

Related

Schroeder v. Burleigh County Board of Commissioners
252 N.W.2d 893 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1977)
Schroeder v. BURLEIGH CTY. BD. OF COMM'RS
252 N.W.2d 893 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1977)
City and County of Denver v. DISTRICT COURT OF SECOND DISTRICT
540 P.2d 1088 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1975)
Civil Serv. Com'n of C. & C. of Denver v. District Court
527 P.2d 531 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1974)
Civil Serv. Com'n v. District Ct. in & for Cty. of Adams
522 P.2d 1231 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
515 P.2d 465, 183 Colo. 174, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-pav-const-co-v-district-ct-jefferson-cty-colo-1973.