explaining that an amendment "must be read, not in a vacuum, but in the context of the entire preexisting statutory ... scheme"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that an amendment "must be read, not in a vacuum, but in the context of the entire preexisting statutory ... scheme"
- “It is well established that as a general rule, neither a county officer nor a subordinate county agency has any standing or legal authority to question or obtain judicial review of an action taken by a superior state agency.”
- disapproved on other grounds, i.e., standing, in Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General Assembly, 198 Colo. 302, 599 P.2d 887 (1979)
- original proceeding brought by state Board of Equalization against county assessors who challenged constitutionality of a statute
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General Assembly, 198 Colo. 302 (1979)
See Lamm v. Barber, 192 Colo. 511, 518, 565 P.2d 538, 543 (1977) (explaining that an amendment "must be read, not in a vacuum, but in the context of the entire preexisting statutory ... scheme"), disapproved of in part by Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Fifty-First Gen. Assemb., 198 Colo. 302, 307-08, 599 P.2d 887, 891 (1979) ; cf. People v. Trujillo, 251 P.3d 477, 481 (Colo.App.2010) ( "provisions introduced by an amendator…
Questioned by Coquina Oil Corp. v. Larimer County Board of Equalization, 13 Brief Times Rptr. 311 (1989)
Benbrook noted that this court’s decisions in Modular Communities, Inc. v. McKnight, 191 Colo. 101, 550 P.2d 866 (1976), and Lamm v. Barber, 192 Colo. 511, 565 P.2d 538 (1977), also called into question many cases later decided by the court of appeals that revived the "wholly illegal or entirely erroneous” language contained in Northcutt and its progeny.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE GROVES
specially concurring:
I concur with the opinion except that I am not at this time prepared to concur in the part thereof relating to standing.