Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

161 Colo. 501

Passe v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 30, 1967

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1967-01-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A party may amend his pleading onee as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it any time within twenty days after it is filed. Otherwise, a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Richard SCHADEN MCE-DIA, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company Midfield Concessions Enterprises, Inc. a Michigan limited liability company Andrea Hachem Noureddine "Dean" Hachem Samir Mashni Simrae Solutions LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Sudan I. Muhammad Pangea Concessions Group LLC, a Florida limited liability company Niven Patel and Rohit Patel v. DIA BREWING CO., LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Doe v. Heitler

Relies on Sprott v. Roberts

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-01-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2021

9 state decisions

501967197019801990200020102020decided

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 →

¶1Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Moore.

¶2*502Albert B. Passe filed a complaint against the defendants in error above named in which he sought an injunction against defendant Mitchell, as well as damages in the amount of $25,000, and relief against the other defendants in the nature of mandamus to compel performance by them of alleged official duties. By stipulation the claim for damages was withdrawn.

¶3A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was filed by the defendants, and upon the hearing thereof the trial court granted the motion, dismissed the action, and, over objection of counsel for plaintiff, entered a judgment “with prejudice.” No opportunity was given to file an amended complaint notwithstanding the provisions of R.C.P. Colo. 15(a), which provides in pertinent part:

¶4“A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed .”

¶5No responsive pleading has been filed in the instant case, and no final judgment should have been entered in the absence of a showing of record that plaintiff waived the right to file an amended complaint, and elected to stand upon the allegations of the complaint to which the motion to dismiss was addressed.

¶6In Sprott v. Roberts, 154 Colo. 252, 390 P.2d 465, a similar situation was presented and we there reversed the judgment of dismissal. From that opinion we quote the following:

¶7“As we view it the trial court could not enter its judgment of dismissal until Michael had had at least an opportunity to amend his complaint.”

¶8The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant time within which an amended complaint may be filed.

¶9Mr. Justice McWilliams, Mr. Justice Hodges and Mr. Justice Kelley concur.

/161/colo/501 · .json · Public domain