Laserfiche WebLink
II. STATEMENT OF LAW /STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR RULE 106 PROCEEDING <br />This action is brought pursuant to Rule 106(a)(4), C.R.C.P., which provides that relief may <br />be obtained in district court: <br />[w]here any governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or <br />quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no <br />plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law.... [R]eview shall be limited <br />to a determination of whether the body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its <br />discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer." <br />The decision of the governmental body will only be upheld "if it is supported by competent evidence <br />in the record." Arndt v. City of Boulder, 895 P.2d 1092, 1095 (Colo. App. 1994). "Abuse of <br />discretion means that the decision under review is not reasonably supported by any competent <br />evidence in the record; that is, the decision is so devoid of evidentiary support that it is arbitrary and <br />capricious." Platte River Environmental Conservation Org. v. National Hog Farm Inc., 804 P.2d <br />290, 291 -92 (Colo. App. 1990). Failure to consider requirements and standards set forth in a statute <br />or code in reaching a determination may also constitute an abuse of discretion. See Board of <br />Assessment Appeals ofthe State of Colorado v. E.E. Sonenberg & Sons Inc., 797 P.2d 27, 34 (Colo. <br />1990). Further, if the governmental body takes action or exercises discretion not afforded to it in its <br />ordinances, it exceeds its jurisdiction and its actions in such regard are invalid. See Sherman v. City <br />of Colorado Springs Planning Commission, 680 P.2d 1302, 1304 (Colo. App. 1983) citing South of <br />Second Association v. Geor eto , 196 Colo. 89, 580 P.2d 807 (1978). <br />Con <br />