Cripple Creek v. Johns

6 Citing cases

  1. Spencer v. Sytsma

    67 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    In Spencer, we held that where co-defendants are alleged to be responsible for the same injury to a plaintiff but did not act in concert or engage in the same tortious acts, venue must be satisfied as to both defendants. See 67 P.3d at 7. Spencer reached this conclusion essentially by resolving the conflict between the joinder provisions of C.R.C.P. 20 and the venue provisions of C.R.C.P. 98 in favor of deciding venue before considering joinder where separate torts allegedly are the cause of a plaintiff's injury. See id. at 6-7.

    We have generally focused on the language of Rule 98, which allows suit to be brought in a county where any of the defendants reside. City of Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823 (1972). InCripple Creek, the plaintiff brought suit in Denver County because some of the defendants were residents of that county.

  2. Tillery v. District Court

    692 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1984)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that although the standard of review is abuse of discretion, a plaintiff's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice should be granted unless it will result in legal prejudice to the defendant

    The Denver district court's transfer of venue for Tillery's case was within its discretion, and the Summit County district court was not required to remand the case to Denver. See City of Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823 (1972). By contrast, if the original court changes the venue of an action on an improper basis, or without a basis, the receiving court must transfer the case back to the original court upon motion by any party.

  3. People, Int. of Maddox v. Dist. Ct.

    198 Colo. 208 (Colo. 1979)   Cited 10 times

    This is in accord with the general state of the law. A change of venue is properly a pretrial motion to have the merits of the action adjudicated in the correct forum and county. See, for example, City of Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823 (1972); Slinkard v. Jordan, 131 Colo. 144, 279 P.2d 1054 (1955); 77 Am. Jur. 2d Venue ยง 1. Accordingly, such a motion is untimely if the merits have already been adjudicated in their entirety. [3] The merits of a juvenile delinquency proceeding are concluded with the determination that the allegations in the original petition are true and the finding that the child is a juvenile delinquent.

  4. Bd. of Land Comm. v. Dist. Ct.

    551 P.2d 700 (Colo. 1976)

    [2,3] A motion to change venue based on the convenience of the parties lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. C.R.C.P. 98(f)(2); City of Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823 (1972). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to change venue on this ground under the facts of this case.

  5. Combined Communications Corp. v. Pub. Serv

    865 P.2d 893 (Colo. App. 1993)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that "verdicts were not subject to being set off by the amounts of [workers' compensation] benefits" because the "benefits were received as a result of the employees' contracts of hire"

    However, a suit to obtain a money judgment against a utility is not one that affects its property or operations within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 98(a), and the mandatory venue requirements of that rule do not apply to such suits. Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823 (1972).

  6. Mohler v. Park Co. Sch. Dist

    32 Colo. App. 388 (Colo. App. 1973)   Cited 13 times

    The granting or denying of a motion for change of venue is a matter lying within the discretion of the trial court and, where there is no showing that it abused its discretion, its ruling will not be disturbed on review. City of Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823. There was no showing that the trial court abused its discretion and further no showing that a fair and impartial jury could not be selected. [5] Finally, defendants contend, in reliance on 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 123-18-7(1), that any contract entered into between the parties was void if it was not in writing.