publication requirement (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

publication requirement in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2021 1 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
City of Lenexa v. City of Olathegreen
kan · 1983 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Meyer, 846 P.2d at 876 ; cf. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159 , 660 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1983) (where the statutorily required publication erroneously described the property to be annexed, though the owners of the subject land were aware of the correct description, there was no substantial compliance because the publication requirement was intended to provide notice to the general public); Johnson v. Sandy City Corp., 28 Utah 2d 22 , 497 P.2d 644, 645-46 (1972) (filing an ordinance with the county clerk three years after the ordinance was adopted did not substantially comply with

2011See Meyer, 846 P.2d at 876 ; cf. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159 , 660 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1983) (where the statutorily required publication erroneously described the property to be annexed, though the owners of the subject land were aware of the correct description, there was no substantial compliance because the publication requirement was intended to provide notice to the general public); Johnson v. Sandy City Corp., 28 Utah 2d 22 , 497 P.2d 644, 645-46 (1972) (filing an ordinance with the county clerk three years after the ordinance was adopted did not substantially comply with

11
Meyer v. Lammgreen
colo · 1993 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011See Meyer, 846 P.2d at 876 ; cf. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159 , 660 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1983) (where the statutorily required publication erroneously described the property to be annexed, though the owners of the subject land were aware of the correct description, there was no substantial compliance because the publication requirement was intended to provide notice to the general public); Johnson v. Sandy City Corp., 28 Utah 2d 22 , 497 P.2d 644, 645-46 (1972) (filing an ordinance with the county clerk three years after the ordinance was adopted did not substantially comply with

11
Johnson v. Sandy City Corporationgreen
utah · 1972 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Meyer, 846 P.2d at 876 ; cf. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159 , 660 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1983) (where the statutorily required publication erroneously described the property to be annexed, though the owners of the subject land were aware of the correct description, there was no substantial compliance because the publication requirement was intended to provide notice to the general public); Johnson v. Sandy City Corp., 28 Utah 2d 22 , 497 P.2d 644, 645-46 (1972) (filing an ordinance with the county clerk three years after the ordinance was adopted did not substantially comply with

2011See Meyer, 846 P.2d at 876 ; cf. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 233 Kan. 159 , 660 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1983) (where the statutorily required publication erroneously described the property to be annexed, though the owners of the subject land were aware of the correct description, there was no substantial compliance because the publication requirement was intended to provide notice to the general public); Johnson v. Sandy City Corp., 28 Utah 2d 22 , 497 P.2d 644, 645-46 (1972) (filing an ordinance with the county clerk three years after the ordinance was adopted did not substantially comply with

11
Watson v. University Of Utah Medical Centergreen
ca10 · 1996 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998See Watson v. University of Utah Medical Center, supra. When publicized stigmatizing statements foreclose the freedom to take advantage of a specific employment opportunity, including the opportunity to be re-employed at a place of former employment, a protected liberty interest has been infringed.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Scammon v. City of Chicago neutral
· 1866
2 sentences

1901The court held such publication illegal basing the decision upon the statute of the state and saying, “ Sunday is not a judicial day, nor is it a day upon which any work, labor or calling can be legally pursued * * * and the publication is a violation of law.” Blackwell on Tax Titles (5th ed.), § 440, in presenting the law on the subject of advertisement of a tax sale, says, “ A publication on Sunday is no notice; Sunday is not a judicial day; such publication is itself a violation of law and no citizen is bound to read or take notice of it,” citing in support of this conclusion, Ormsby v. Lou

1901The court held such publication illegal basing the decision upon the statute of the state and saying, “ Sunday is not a judicial day, nor is it a day upon which any work, labor or calling can be legally pursued * * * and the publication is a violation of law.” Blackwell on Tax Titles (5th ed.), § 440, in presenting the law on the subject of advertisement of a tax sale, says, “ A publication on Sunday is no notice; Sunday is not a judicial day; such publication is itself a violation of law and no citizen is bound to read or take notice of it,” citing in support of this conclusion, Ormsby v. Lou

21901–1901
In re Interrogatories of the Governor green
colo · 1978
1 sentence

2021Assembly, 578 P.2d 200 , 207 (Colo. 1978); whether a law was void due to the General Assembly’s alleged violation of the state constitution’s publication requirement for session laws, In re Interrogatories from House of Representatives Concerning Senate Bill No. 24, Thirty- Ninth Gen.

12021–2021
In Re Interrogatories of the House of Representatives green
colo · 1953
1 sentence

2021Assembly, 254 P.2d 853 , 856–57 (Colo. 1953); whether a law was invalid because the Senate had unconstitutionally failed to record the vote in its journal, People ex rel.

12021–2021

Where else courts name it

NY 44 (1912–2025) CA 24 (1943–2026) TX 18 (1937–2024) IL 14 (1978–2025) AR 12 (1903–2016) NJ 11 (1974–2018) IN 11 (1977–2013) PA 11 (1970–2023) CT 10 (1996–2024) FL 9 (1993–2025) GA 8 (1978–2022) MI 7 (1977–2018) LA 6 (1957–2026) OH 5 (2003–2024) CO 5 (1901–2021) ID 5 (2007–2019) MA 5 (2003–2024) KY 5 (1918–2013) VA 5 (1996–2003) MS 5 (1965–2008) AL 4 (1986–2025) DE 4 (2000–2020) TN 4 (1997–1999) WI 4 (1940–2019) WA 4 (2008–2018) HI 4 (1931–2004) MO 4 (1899–2000) IA 3 (1953–2020) NM 3 (2003–2019) MD 3 (1972–2020) NE 3 (2004–2024) OK 2 (2011–2014) MT 2 (1973–2025) MN 2 (1986–1994) OR 2 (1996–2003) AZ 2 (2001–2014) RI 2 (1973–1997)

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