5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. Dunbar v. Giordanogreen1 sentence2020Dunbar v. Giordano, 481 P.2d 415, 416 (Colo. 1971) (“It is a general rule of law that a legislative body may not delegate the power to make a law or define a law, but it may delegate the power to determine some fact or state of things to effectuate the purpose of the law.”). 9 ¶19 This so-called non-delegation doctrine derives from the constitutional separation of powers. | 1 | 1 |
City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858green1 sentence1990See Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo.1983); Littleton Education Ass’n v. Arapahoe County School District, 191 Colo. 411 , 553 P.2d 793 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cottrell v. City & County of Denver
green
2 sentences1990Under the non-delegation doctrine, legislation must provide sufficient “standards and safeguards and administrative standards and safeguards, in combination, to protect against unnecessary and uncontrolled exercise of discretionary power.” Cottrell, 636 P.2d at 703 . 1989In Cottrell we recognized the inadequacy of “[t]he traditional statement of the non-delegation doctrine” that “the legislature may delegate power to an administrative agency only if The legislature has provided sufficient standards to guide the agency’s exercise of that power.’ ” Id. at 708 (quoting Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, 194 Colo. 113 , 570 P.2d 518 (1977)). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
Fellows v. LaTronica
green
2 sentences1990It is true that, since Big Sandy was decided, the former strictness with which the supreme court treated the non-delegation principle, as exemplified in Fellows v. Latronica, 151 Colo. 300 , 377 P.2d 547 (1962), has been relaxed. 1990It is true that, since Big Sandy was decided, the former strictness with which the supreme court treated the non-delegation principle, as exemplified in Fellows v. Latronica, 151 Colo. 300 , 377 P.2d 547 (1962), has been relaxed. | 2 | 1983–1990 |
People v. Lowrie
green
1 sentence2020Lowrie, 761 P.2d at 781 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Littleton Education Ass'n v. Arapahoe County School District, No. 6
green
2 sentences1990See Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo.1983); Littleton Education Ass’n v. Arapahoe County School District, 191 Colo. 411 , 553 P.2d 793 (1976). 1990See Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo.1983); Littleton Education Ass’n v. Arapahoe County School District, 191 Colo. 411 , 553 P.2d 793 (1976). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Elizondo v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE, ETC.
green
2 sentences1989In Cottrell we recognized the inadequacy of “[t]he traditional statement of the non-delegation doctrine” that “the legislature may delegate power to an administrative agency only if The legislature has provided sufficient standards to guide the agency’s exercise of that power.’ ” Id. at 708 (quoting Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, 194 Colo. 113 , 570 P.2d 518 (1977)). 1989In Cottrell we recognized the inadequacy of “[t]he traditional statement of the non-delegation doctrine” that “the legislature may delegate power to an administrative agency only if The legislature has provided sufficient standards to guide the agency’s exercise of that power.’ ” Id. at 708 (quoting Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, 194 Colo. 113 , 570 P.2d 518 (1977)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.