subject of judicial inquiry in Colorado

1896Bright v. Farmers' High Line Canal Co., 3 Colo. App. 170 .

1896Bright v. Farmers' High Line Canal Co., 3 Colo. App. 170 .

1965As stated in People v. Albrecht, 145 Colo. 202 , 358 P.2d 4 : “Where the existence of a rational basis for legislation, the constitutionality of which is attacked, depends upon facts beyond the sphere of judicial notice, such facts may properly be made the subject of judicial inquiry, and the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. * * *” In the instant case no evidence was taken, and the conclusions of the legislature concerning the need for remedial action must

1965As stated in People v. Albrecht, 145 Colo. 202 , 358 P.2d 4 : “Where the existence of a rational basis for legislation, the constitutionality of which is attacked, depends upon facts beyond the sphere of judicial notice, such facts may properly be made the subject of judicial inquiry, and the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be challenged by showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist. * * *” In the instant case no evidence was taken, and the conclusions of the legislature concerning the need for remedial action must

1960As was observed in People v. Barksdale, 104 Colo. 1 , 87 P. (2d) 755 : “Especially in disposing of constitutional objections it is important to give a full hearing, first in regard to the proper allegations in pleadings, and then ■— as a rule —■ on the facts. * * *.” Where the existence of a rational basis for legislation, the constitutionality of which is attacked, depends upon facts beyond the sphere of judicial notice, such facts may properly be made the subject of judicial inquiry, and the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be ch

1960As was observed in People v. Barksdale, 104 Colo. 1 , 87 P. (2d) 755 : “Especially in disposing of constitutional objections it is important to give a full hearing, first in regard to the proper allegations in pleadings, and then ■— as a rule —■ on the facts. * * *.” Where the existence of a rational basis for legislation, the constitutionality of which is attacked, depends upon facts beyond the sphere of judicial notice, such facts may properly be made the subject of judicial inquiry, and the constitutionality of a statute predicated upon the existence of a particular state of facts may be ch

1911It is well settled in this jurisdiction that judges of district courts are not liable in damages for official acts, at the suits of private parties, and their motives cannot in this way be the subject of judicial inquiry. — Hughes v. Cummings et al., 7 Colo. 141 ; Hughes v. McCoy, 11 Colo. 591 ; Terry v. Wright et al., 9 Col.

1907It is its duty to take into consideration the interests of both the public and the owner of the property, together with all other circumstances fairly to be considered in determining whether the tribunal has, under the guise of regulating the rates, exceeded its constitutional authority and practically deprived the owner of the property without due process of law.— Covington, etc., Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578 .

1907It was said in the case of Leadville Water Co. v. Leadville, 22 Colo. 297 : “Corporations or individuals exercising public franchise's or performing public services, unless there is a contract otherwise providing and which exempts them from the operation of the general rule, are subject to the power of the legislative department of the government to regulate their compensation for such services. ‘ ‘ There is, however, a limitation to this general doctrine, necessarily implied, which is that such compensation must be reasonable; and it is a proper subject of judicial inquiry and determination,