Miller v. Reeder, 401 P.2d 604 (Colo. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Reeder, 401 P.2d 604 (Colo. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · …in seeking a reversal or modification of the judgment or the correction of adverse findings, orders, or rulings of the trial court. ⚠ not in text
37 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: in Interest of C.W.B., Jr (colo, 2018-02-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Interest of C.W.B., Jr
Colo. · 2018 · confidence medium
This court has stated that “[o]nly parties aggrieved may appeal.” City & Cty. of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 235 P.3d 296, 302 (Colo. 2010) (quoting Miller v. Reeder, 401 P.2d 604, 605 (Colo. 1965)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City & County of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.
Colo. · 2010 · confidence medium
In prior cases, we have dismissed appeals because the appellant was not an "aggrieved party." See, e.g., Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 135 , 401 P.2d 604, 605 (1965); Camenisch v. Nuccitelli, 150 Colo. 141, 142 , 372 P.2d 85, 85 (1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Broomfield v. FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRR.
Colo. · 2010 · confidence medium
In prior cases, we have dismissed appeals because the appellant was not an "aggrieved party." See, e.g., Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 135 , 401 P.2d 604, 605 (1965); Camenisch v. Nuccitelli, 150 Colo. 141, 142 , 372 P.2d 85, 85 (1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brody v. Bock
Colo. · 1995 · confidence medium
Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 136 , 401 P.2d 604, 605 (1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fagerholm (2×)
Colo. · 1989 · confidence medium
Only parties aggrieved may appeal." Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 136 , 401 P.2d 604, 605 (1965) (quoting Miller v. Clark, 144 Colo. 431, 432 , 356 P.2d 965, 966 (1960)); see People v. Tharp, 746 P.2d 1337, 1339 (Colo.1987); see also Ragsdale Bros.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tharp
Colo. · 1987 · confidence medium
Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 136 , 401 P.2d 604, 605 (1965).
discussed Cited "see" Potter v. Thieman (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134 , 401 P.2d 604 (1965); Camenisch v. Nuccitelli, 150 Colo. 141 , 372 P.2d 85 (1962).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Martin P. Miller, District Attorney, 18th Judicial District
v.
David G. Reeder
21219.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
May 3, 1965.
401 P.2d 604
Martin P. Miller, District Attorney, 18th Judicial District, State of Colorado, David J. Hahn, Chief Deputy, for plaintiff in error., Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard, Raymond J. Turner, for defendant in error.
Day.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

The record in this case reveals that the parties in the lower court were the People of the State of Colorado vs. Reeder.

There is now sought an opinion from this court on an error of law pursuant to C.R.S. 1963, 39-7-26 (2). The pertinent part of that statute is “Writs of error shall lie on behalf of the state, or the people, to review decisions of the trial court in any criminal case upon question of law * * (Emphasis supplied.)

The statute further provides that “* * * it shall be the duty of the district attorney * * * to sue out a writ of error on behalf of the people * * (Emphasis supplied.)

In Fischer v. Hanna, 21 Colo. 9, 39 Pac. 420, this court held that only a party to the original proceeding may sue out a writ of error. In the case at bar, Martin P. Miller, District Attorney, was not a party to the proceedings below and is not a party aggreived. He cannot, therefore, be a plaintiff in error in this court.

[*136] In Miller v. Clark, 144 Colo. 431, 356 P.2d 965, this court cited with approval Wilson v. Board of Regents, 46 Colo. 100, 102 Pac. 1088, in which may be found the following:

“* * * Appeals are not allowed for the mere purpose of delay, or to present purely abstract legal questions, however important or interesting, but to correct errors injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation. Only parties aggrieved may appeal. The word aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, the denial to the party of some claim of right, either of property or of person, or the imposition upon him of some burden or obligation. * * *”

The writ of error is accordingly dismissed.

Mr. Justice Frantz and Mr. Justice McWilliams concur.