Laserfiche WebLink
Caperton for the first time in the context of a Colorado elected <br /> official serving in a quasi-judicial capacity, we disagree. <br /> A. Construal as a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) Claim <br /> u The Board first contends that the district court did not have <br /> jurisdiction to consider NLGC's as-applied due process claim <br /> because it was raised under C.R.C.P. 57 and not C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). <br /> )�,; "[A]s-applied challenges," as opposed to facial challenges, <br /> "concern the governmental body's quasi-judicial action." Kruse, <br /> 192 P.3d at 600. And a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action is generally the <br /> sole remedy for review of a quasi-judicial action. Sundheim v. Bd. of <br /> Cnty. Comm'rs, 904 P.2d 1337, 1349 (Colo. App. 1995). But see <br /> Yakutat Land Corp. v. Langer, 2020 CO 30, ¶ 17; Native Am. Rts. <br /> Fund, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 97 P.3d 283, 287 (Colo. App. 2004). So <br /> the Board should have raised this claim under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). <br /> ?C) However, any defect in NLGC's complaint was merely <br /> procedural in nature; it was not a jurisdictional bar to review as the <br /> Board suggests. Indeed, "a plaintiff need not label his action as one <br /> under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) to secure judicial review." High Plains Libr. <br /> Dist. v. Kirkmeyer, 2015 COA 91, ¶ 16. "The question which should <br /> concern us is not whether the plaintiff has asked for the proper <br /> 14 <br />