Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
______________________________________________________________________________
v.
Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE WEBB
Román and Bernard, JJ., concur
Faegre & Benson, LLP, John R. Sperber, Jacy T. Rock, Denver, Colorado, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees Sinclair Marketing Inc.; Sinclair Oil
Corporation; and Sinclair Transportation Company
Zakhem Atherton, LLC, John S. Zakhem, Matthew J. Cassady, Denver,
Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees Burch Family
Partnership, LLP; Murray Family Farms, LLP; Blue Dog Leasing, LLC; Thomas
H. Wielde; Log Jammer, LLC; Hunt Brothers Properties, Inc; K-W Enterprises;
9985E104, LLC; Continental World Leasing Real Estate, LLC; T1 Ellis
Enterprises, LLC; Marilinn Sonneman; Arthur Crocfer; Mary Jane Crocfer;
Bruce J. Crocfer; Eugene A. Kapaun; and Mary Kapaun
Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP, Thomas E. Merrigan, Melanie B. Lewis,
Heidi C. Potter, Boulder, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees and Cross-
Appellants
This unilateral land annexation case primarily presents the
way. The Burch plaintiffs and the Sinclair plaintiffs appeal the trial
following exceptions:
1
• If “[a]ny part of the municipal boundary or territory
12-106(1.1)(a)(I); or
106(1.1)(a)(II).
that “not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed
§§ 31-12-104(1)(a), 31-12-107(1)(a).
2
If a reviewing court “finds” that one of these exceptions
§ 31-12-116(2)(b).
II. Facts
undisputed.
was formed by land that the City had annexed in 1985 (AN-57-85).
was disputed.
3
annexations declared void because a railroad right-of-way is a
the record that was before the city, and . . . must be affirmed unless
4
when based on evidence not specifically controverted by other
evidence in the record.” TCD North, Inc. v. City Council, 713 P.2d
and [we] may not pass upon the wisdom of the annexation itself.”
courts. Id.; accord Minch v. Town of Mead, 957 P.2d 1054, 1056
5
Initially, we disagree with the City that we must affirm “since
there was competent evidence in the record that the railroad rights-
predictability. Cf. DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, ___ P.3d ___, ___
novo review.
6
Neither section 31-12-106 nor any other provision of the Act
Other sections of the Act use the phrase “right-of way” with
7
annexed.” § 31-12-104(1)(a); see also § 31-12-105(1)(e) (“platted
transportation right-of-way”).
one statute, but omits that provision from another similar statute,
P.3d 340, 342 (Colo. App. 2006). Thus, the General Assembly’s use
the Act and its omission from section 31-12-106(1.1) are presumed
1190, 1194 (Colo. App. 2008); see also Zamarripa v. Q & T Food
given effect”).
8
rights-of-way. See Hearings on H.B. 1533 before the H. Local
P.2d 687, 688 (Colo. App. 1999) (declining to take “judicial notice of
9
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.
dispute.” Hence, unlike in In re Senate Bill No. 95, 146 Colo. 233,
10
which it has undertaken to employ in the discharge of
those [public] functions. And, as incident to ownership,
it may use the property for the purposes of making a
profit for itself . . . . It is not bound to so use its property
that others, having no business with it, may make profit
to themselves. Its property is to be deemed, in every legal
sense, private property as between it and those of the
general public who have no occasion to use it for
purposes of transportation.
Railroad Co., 195 U.S. 540, 570 (1904), the Supreme Court noted
Inc., 856 P.2d 496, 504 (Colo. 1993). Plaintiffs correctly point out
199 Colo. 344, 608 P.2d 350 (1980). But railroads retain private
11
Ward, 4 Colo. 30, 33 (1877) (“railway company has the undoubted
hearings on House Bill 1533 show that the General Assembly was
2 See also Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Webster County
Bd. of Supervisors, 880 F. Supp. 1290, 1307 n.11 (N.D. Iowa 1995)
(“The sidewalk is a public right-of-way. The railroad's right-of-way
is a private one.”), aff’d, 71 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 1995); cf. Brady v.
Consolidated Rail Corp., 519 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1988) (railroad
company owed duty of care to person injured at the point where the
railroad right of way intersected with the public right of way).
12
establish the requisite boundaries by annexing railroad rights-of-
ways. See Moffett v. Life Care Centers, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (Colo. No.
may look to other factors, such as the goal of the statutory design,
enclaves.
the Southern and Northern Enclaves are not void based on the
13
public rights-of-way exception in section 31-12-106(1.1), and to
explain how the engineer reached this conclusion. The City found:
14
requirements for legal annexation including a
requirement for a one-sixth contiguity of annexed areas
with existing Commerce City boundaries at the time of
annexation were valid.
(Emphasis added.)
see also Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, 123 P.3d 1187, 1195
necessary for the district court to direct the City to make further
requirement.
15
The contiguous boundary is depicted on the map with hatch
the City, our calculations using the map’s measurements along the
about the Southern Enclave’s compliance with the Act and the civil
16
conclusory without explanation or reference to supporting facts.
conclusory statements).
based on the maps and surveys already in the record, whether AN-
appropriate for the trial court to remand the case to the board with
17
If the City determines that the contiguity requirement was not
disagree.
The City requested attorney fees and costs under section 31-
Drainage & Flood Control District, 64 P.3d 941, 946 (Colo. App.
2003).
18
Because no case has interpreted section 31-12-116(2)(a)(IV),
within the discretion of the trial court and will be disturbed only if
e.g., Munoz v. Measner, 214 P.3d 510, 512 (Colo. App. 2009) (cert.
Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corp., 197 P.3d 261 (Colo. App. 2008)
in the Act. See McCormick v. Bradley, 870 P.2d 599, 607-08 (Colo.
App. 1993) (“A losing position does not necessarily justify an award
other basis in the record for its position. Further, the Burch
correct.
19
Based on this conclusion, we also decline to award the City
20
Appendix: Excerpt from the Annexation Map for AN 57-85
21