Rubins v. Plummer

6 Citing cases

  1. Jenkins v. Weis

    868 P.2d 1374 (Utah Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Holding void, on direct appeal, a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a cause of action without notice or hearing

    "Generally, a trial court may not dismiss an action when neither party has sought dismissal and there is no notice or hearing on whether there exists a justifiable cause for dismissal." Rubins v. Plummer, 813 P.2d 778, 778 (Colo.App. 1990). Unless expressly granted authority to act on its own motion, a trial court must typically limit its rulings to the motions placed before it. "[A] trial court has no authority to render a decision on issues not presented for determination. Any findings rendered outside the issues [presented] are a nullity."

  2. Miller v. Miller

    2020 UT App. 171 (Utah Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Observing that "when modifying parent-time (as opposed to custody), the petitioner is required to make only some showing of a change in circumstances, which does not rise to the same level as the substantial and material showing required when a district court alters custody" (cleaned up)

    In other words, "[t]imely and adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way are the very heart of procedural fairness." Nelson v. Jacobsen , 669 P.2d 1207, 1211 (Utah 1983) ; see alsoRubins v. Plummer , 813 P.2d 778, 780 (Colo. App. 1990) ("The right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard is a critical part of our judicial system." (citing Goldberg v. Kelly , 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) )).

  3. Schwartz v. Owens

    134 P.3d 455 (Colo. App. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Applying this principle to an examination of a related filing fee statute, section 13–17.5–103, C.R.S.2013

    A trial court should normally refrain from dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim unless the deficiency is brought to its attention by the parties through pleadings or motions. Rubins v. Plummer, 813 P.2d 778 (Colo.App. 1990). However, there are cases where dismissal of a claim may be proper even where no motion requesting dismissal has been filed.

  4. DIA Brewing Co. v. MCE-DIA, LLC

    480 P.3d 703 (Colo. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    E.g. , Harris , 155 P.3d at 585 ; B.C. Inv. Co. v. Throm , 650 P.2d 1333, 1335 (Colo. App. 1982). Other cases involve clear preemption, e.g. , Richardson v. United States , 336 F.2d 265, 266 n.1 (9th Cir. 1964) ; claims that are "so patently frivolous that they cannot be saved," Rubins v. Plummer , 813 P.2d 778, 779 (Colo. App. 1990) ; and other "special circumstance[s]," In re Custody of Nugent , 955 P.2d 584, 587 (Colo. App. 1997). ¶ 33 This approach to determining the finality of dismissal orders comports with the federal courts’ treatment of the issue.

  5. OSBURN v. BOTT

    2011 UT App. 138 (Utah Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    "In our judicial system, except in extraordinary circumstances . . ., all parties are entitled to notice that a particular issue is being considered by a court and to an opportunity to present evidence and argument on that issue before decision." Plumb v. State, 809 P.2d 734, 743 (Utah 1990); see also Rubins v. Plummer, 813 P.2d 778, 778 (Colo.Ct.App. 1990) ("Generally, a trial court may not dismiss an action when neither party has sought dismissal and there has been no notice or hearing on whether there exists a justifiable cause for dismissal."); cf. Poulsen v. Frear, 946 P.2d 738, 743 (Utah Ct.App. 1997) (holding that before a trial court can impose sanctions sua sponte, the party must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard). ¶ 8 By striking the evidentiary hearing and summarily dismissing Girlfriend's petition without notice or an opportunity to respond, Trial Judge failed to provide Girlfriend with procedural due process.

  6. Provo v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

    66 P.3d 138 (Colo. App. 2003)   Cited 22 times
    Hearing not necessary if issue is one of law

    While dismissals on the parties' motions are preferred, an ALJ may dismiss a claim sua sponte, provided that the claimant had an opportunity to be heard. See Rubins v.Plummer, 813 P.2d 778 (Colo.App. 1990). The opportunity to be heard may be satisfied by the filing of written objections and is not limited to a personal appearance in the presence of an ALJ.