Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

157 Colo. 134

401 P.2d 604

Miller v. Reeder

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 3, 1965

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1965-05-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including City & County of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., Broomfield v. FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRR.

Relies on Miller v. Clark · Wilson v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado · Fischer v. Hanna

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-05-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2018

20 state decisions

100196519701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

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

¶3 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.)

¶4 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.)

¶5 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.

¶6*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:

¶7 “… 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. …”

¶8 The writ of error is accordingly dismissed.

¶9 Mr. Justice Frantz and Mr. Justice McWilliams concur.

/157/colo/134 · .json · Public domain