public purpose doctrine in Colorado

7 Colorado opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2010 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Interrogatories by the Colorado State Senategreen colo · 1977 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1991 2 sentences 1991We held that article XI, section 2, was inapplicable because the recipient of the funds was a political subdivision of the state, id., 193 Colo. at 307 , 566 P.2d at 356 , and also because "the public purpose doctrine... applies." Id. 1991We held that article XI, section 2, was inapplicable because the recipient of the funds was a political subdivision of the state, id., 193 Colo. at 307 , 566 P.2d at 356 , and also because "the public purpose doctrine... applies." Id.	1	2
In Re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005green colo · 1991 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010Asserting that it will foster urban renewal and tourism, and generate sales tax revenues in excess of the facility's cost, in its pleadings, the City justifies the USOC's occupation of the facility under the "public purpose exception." See, e.g., In re Interrogatory on House Bill 918-1005, 814 P.2d 875, 882 (Colo.1991) ("[AJrticle XI, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution does not prohibit a municipality from conferring a monetary benefit on a private company in consideration of the company's undertaking a project ... as long as the expenditure by a municipality furthers a valid public purpos	1	1
Allardice v. Adams Countygreen colo · 1970 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Asserting that it will foster urban renewal and tourism, and generate sales tax revenues in excess of the facility's cost, in its pleadings, the City justifies the USOC's occupation of the facility under the "public purpose exception." See, e.g., In re Interrogatory on House Bill 918-1005, 814 P.2d 875, 882 (Colo.1991) ("[AJrticle XI, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution does not prohibit a municipality from conferring a monetary benefit on a private company in consideration of the company's undertaking a project ... as long as the expenditure by a municipality furthers a valid public purpos 2010Asserting that it will foster urban renewal and tourism, and generate sales tax revenues in excess of the facility's cost, in its pleadings, the City justifies the USOC's occupation of the facility under the "public purpose exception." See, e.g., In re Interrogatory on House Bill 918-1005, 814 P.2d 875, 882 (Colo.1991) ("[AJrticle XI, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution does not prohibit a municipality from conferring a monetary benefit on a private company in consideration of the company's undertaking a project ... as long as the expenditure by a municipality furthers a valid public purpos	1	1
BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF MORGAN v. Kobobelgreen coloctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Kobobel, 176 P.3d 860, 863 (Colo.App.2007) (U.S. Supreme Court rejected public use and adopted public purpose test at end of nineteenth century, and Colorado adopted public purpose for condemnation cases in middle of twentieth century); Rabinoff v. Dist. 2009Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 480 , 125 S.Ct. 2655 , 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005); Kobobel, 176 P.3d at 863 .	1	1
City of Aurora v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen colo · 1990 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991Our prior cases have held that article XI , section 2 of the Colorado Constitution does not prohibit a municipality from conferring a monetary benefit on a private company in consideration of the company's undertaking a project, even though the company might have been required to undertake the project without such benefit, as long as the expenditure by the municipality furthers a valid public purpose . 785 P.2d at 1289 (emphasis added). 1991Our prior cases have held that article XI , section 2 of the Colorado Constitution does not prohibit a municipality from conferring a monetary benefit on a private company in consideration of the company's undertaking a project, even though the company might have been required to undertake the project without such benefit, as long as the expenditure by the municipality furthers a valid public purpose . 785 P.2d at 1289 (emphasis added).	1	1
Colorado Central R. R. v. Leagreen colo · 1879 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991The public-purpose doctrine is not the equivalent of the rational-basis standard of review applicable to due process analysis, for if the existence of any legitimate governmental interest can effectively insulate a statute from the Anti-Donation and Private Appropriation Clauses of the Colorado Constitution, then the constitutional proscription against special legislation would be utterly “nugatory and valueless.” Colorado Central R.R. v. Lea, 5 Colo. 192, 196 (1879). 1991The public-purpose doctrine is not the equivalent of the rational-basis standard of review applicable to due process analysis, for if the existence of any legitimate governmental interest can effectively insulate a statute from the Anti-Donation and Private Appropriation Clauses of the Colorado Constitution, then the constitutional proscription against special legislation would be utterly "nugatory and valueless." Colorado Central R.R. v. Lea, 5 Colo. 192, 196 (1879).	1	1
Gude v. City of Lakewoodgreen colo · 1981 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See Gude v. City of Lakewood, 636 P.2d 691 , 695 n. 2 (Colo.1981); In re Interrogatories by the Colorado State Senate, 193 Colo. 298, 306-07 , 566 P.2d 350, 356 (1977); McNichols v. City and County of Denver, 131 Colo. 246 , 280 P.2d 1096 (1955). 1986See Gude v. City of Lakewood, 636 P.2d 691 , 695 n. 2 (Colo.1981); In re Interrogatories by the Colorado State Senate, 193 Colo. 298, 306-07 , 566 P.2d 350, 356 (1977); McNichols v. City and County of Denver, 131 Colo. 246 , 280 P.2d 1096 (1955).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Kelo v. City of New London green scotus · 2005 2 sentences 2009Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 480 , 125 S.Ct. 2655 , 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005); Kobobel, 176 P.3d at 863 . 2009Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 480 , 125 S.Ct. 2655 , 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005); Kobobel, 176 P.3d at 863 .	2	2007–2009
Bedford v. White green colo · 1940 2 sentences 2003This provision is called the "Anti-Appropriation Clause." A public purpose exception to the Anti-Appropriation Clause was recognized as early as 1940 in Bedford v. White, 106 P.2d 469 , 476 (Colo. 1940), where the court held that a statute authorizing judicial pensions was a form of compensation for commendable service rendered to the public rather than a benefit to the individual recipient, and thus served a valid public purpose. 1991We rejected this claim on the basis of the public purpose doctrine, citing Bedford v. White, 106 Colo. 439 , 106 P.2d 469 (1940).	2	1991–2003
Americans United for Separation of Church & State Fund, Inc. v. State green colo · 1982 2 sentences 1991To come within the public purpose exception, "the legislation 884 must evince a discrete and particularized public purpose which, when measured against the proscription of Article V, Section 34, preponderates over any individual interests incidentally served by the statutory program." Id. 1991*We also addressed the public purpose doctrine in Americans United v. State, 648 P.2d 1072 (1982), wherein an organization asserted, inter alia, that the Colorado Student Incentive Grant Program, § 23-3.5-101 to -106, 9 C.R.S. (1981 Supp.), facially violated article V, section 34.	1	1991–1991
In re Relief Bills green colo · 1895 2 sentences 1991My review of our past decisions compels the conclusion that the public purpose doctrine is not applicable in the circumstances of this case and that, therefore, article Y, section 34, renders H.B. 1005 unconstitutional on its face. 2 This court first explored the history and scope of article V, section 34, in In re Relief Bills, 21 Colo. 62 , 39 P. 1089 (1895), and In re Constitutionality of Substitute for Senate Bill No. 83 (In re Benedictine Sisters Bill), 21 Colo. 69 , 39 P. 1088 (1895). 3 In In re Relief Bills, the Governor submitted an interrogatory to the court requesting an opinion as t 1991My review of our past decisions compels the conclusion that the public purpose doctrine is not applicable in the circumstances of this case and that, therefore, article V, section 34, renders H.B. 1005 unconstitutional on its face. [2] *892 This court first explored the history and scope of article V, section 34, in In re Relief Bills, 21 Colo. 62 , 39 P. 1089 (1895), and In re Constitutionality of Substitute for Senate Bill No. 83 (In re Benedictine Sisters Bill), 21 Colo. 69 , 39 P. 1088 (1895). [3] In In re Relief Bills, the Governor submitted an interrogatory to the court requesting an opi	1	1991–1991
In re Constitutionality of Substitute for Senate Bill No. 83 green colo · 1895 2 sentences 1991My review of our past decisions compels the conclusion that the public purpose doctrine is not applicable in the circumstances of this case and that, therefore, article Y, section 34, renders H.B. 1005 unconstitutional on its face. 2 This court first explored the history and scope of article V, section 34, in In re Relief Bills, 21 Colo. 62 , 39 P. 1089 (1895), and In re Constitutionality of Substitute for Senate Bill No. 83 (In re Benedictine Sisters Bill), 21 Colo. 69 , 39 P. 1088 (1895). 3 In In re Relief Bills, the Governor submitted an interrogatory to the court requesting an opinion as t 1991My review of our past decisions compels the conclusion that the public purpose doctrine is not applicable in the circumstances of this case and that, therefore, article V, section 34, renders H.B. 1005 unconstitutional on its face. [2] *892 This court first explored the history and scope of article V, section 34, in In re Relief Bills, 21 Colo. 62 , 39 P. 1089 (1895), and In re Constitutionality of Substitute for Senate Bill No. 83 (In re Benedictine Sisters Bill), 21 Colo. 69 , 39 P. 1088 (1895). [3] In In re Relief Bills, the Governor submitted an interrogatory to the court requesting an opi	1	1991–1991
Witcher v. Canon City green colo · 1986 1 sentence 1991The court disagreed, saying that even if the city could have compelled its private lessee to modernize the bridge at the lessee's own cost, no constitutional violation resulted merely because the city chose to compensate its lessee in order to induce the operator to extend the useful life of the bridge. 716 P.2d at 455 , 456 (citing Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar , 188 Colo. 216 , 533 P.2d 1129 (1975)).	1	1991–1991
Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar green colo · 1975 2 sentences 1991The court disagreed, saying that even if the city could have compelled its private lessee to modernize the bridge at the lessee's own cost, no constitutional violation resulted merely because the city chose to compensate its lessee in order to induce the operator to extend the useful life of the bridge. 716 P.2d at 455 , 456 (citing Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar , 188 Colo. 216 , 533 P.2d 1129 (1975)). 1991The court disagreed, saying that even if the city could have compelled its private lessee to modernize the bridge at the lessee's own cost, no constitutional violation resulted merely because the city chose to compensate its lessee in order to induce the operator to extend the useful life of the bridge. 716 P.2d at 455 , 456 (citing Lyman v. Town of Bow Mar , 188 Colo. 216 , 533 P.2d 1129 (1975)).	1	1991–1991
McNichols v. City and County of Denver green colo · 1955 2 sentences 1986See Gude v. City of Lakewood, 636 P.2d 691 , 695 n. 2 (Colo.1981); In re Interrogatories by the Colorado State Senate, 193 Colo. 298, 306-07 , 566 P.2d 350, 356 (1977); McNichols v. City and County of Denver, 131 Colo. 246 , 280 P.2d 1096 (1955). 1986See Gude v. City of Lakewood, 636 P.2d 691 , 695 n. 2 (Colo.1981); In re Interrogatories by the Colorado State Senate, 193 Colo. 298, 306-07 , 566 P.2d 350, 356 (1977); McNichols v. City and County of Denver, 131 Colo. 246 , 280 P.2d 1096 (1955).	1	1986–1986

Where else courts name it

WI 27 (1967–2018) NC 19 (1962–2025) CA 16 (1937–2025) TX 15 (1945–2022) OK 8 (1938–2024) IL 8 (1980–2014) FL 7 (1975–2008) CO 7 (1986–2010) PA 7 (2010–2024) AR 6 (1988–2008) KS 6 (1993–2003) NJ 5 (1959–2008) NE 5 (1981–1997) MI 4 (1966–2011) AZ 4 (1988–2020) LA 4 (1986–2007) IN 4 (1980–2020) MN 3 (1978–2009) ME 3 (1983–2020) IA 3 (1970–2014) AK 3 (1996–2007) HI 3 (2004–2008) ND 3 (1978–2017) MO 3 (1979–2013) OH 2 (2022–2022) SC 2 (1972–1985) NY 2 (2007–2018) WA 2 (1981–1981)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check