Laserfiche WebLink
remedy, but whether he is entitled to any remedy. If the plaintiff is <br /> entitled to relief under the allegations of the complaint, the court <br /> may grant it regardless of the specific remedy requested." Tisdel v. <br /> Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 621 P.2d 1357, 1360 (Colo. 1980). Thus, <br /> even where plaintiffs do not "refer to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) as the basis <br /> for relief in their complaint, we are not bound by the label attached <br /> to their pleadings." High Plains Libr. Dist., ¶ 17. <br /> To preclude review of NLGC's claim, in our view, would <br /> improperly elevate form over substance. The alleged due process <br /> violations in the claim can be read as a basis to establish that the <br /> Board abused its discretion under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). See C.R.C.P. <br /> 106(a)(4) (Review under Rule 106(a)(4) is limited to whether a "lower <br /> judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has <br /> exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion."); Fisher V. Colo. <br /> Dep't of Corr., 56 P.3d 1210, 1213 (Colo. App. 2002) (a <br /> quasi-judicial body abuses its discretion when it fails to provide due <br /> process). And the claim, if properly styled as a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) <br /> action, would have been timely filed under the rule. See C.R.C.P. <br /> 106(b). Accordingly, we will construe NLGC's as-applied due <br /> process challenge as a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) claim and review whether <br /> 15 <br />