Laserfiche WebLink
"These principles apply no less to quasi-judicial <br /> proceedings where a property right is subject to <br /> a direct and material infringement. Pub. Util. <br /> Comm. v. DeLue, 175 Colo. 317 , 486 P. 2d 1050 . " <br /> Mountain States Telephone and Teleqraph Co. vs. <br /> Department of Labor and Employment,T84 Co o: 334 , <br /> 520 P. 2d 586, 588 , 589 (1974) . <br /> This statutory failing is a violation of the federal <br /> Constitution, 14th Amendment and Article 2 , Section 25 of the <br /> Colorado Constitution, id. <br /> Plaintiff simply did not have the advance notice it <br /> was statutorily entitled to in order to adequately prepare and protect <br /> it' s property interest, and this was repeatedly brought to <br /> the attention of the Board, but to no avail (e.g . transcript <br /> pages 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 and 25) . The Board action must therefore <br /> be set aside. <br /> Actual Notice Does Not Suffice <br /> Where Statutory Notice Is Required <br /> The Board' s conclusion and Defendant' s contention that <br /> actual notice suffices when there is an explicit statutory <br /> notice requirement which has not been complied with, is contrary <br /> to statutory, constitutional and judicial rulings: <br /> " (The administrative agencies) must comply with <br /> the statutory procedural requirements , i .e. , <br /> issue a notice, hold a hearing at which the <br /> respondent is given an opportunity to defend <br /> itself, and finally enter it' s decision in <br /> accordance with the evidence. Anything less <br /> will not satisfy the statute nor that quality <br /> of fairness required by procedural due process . " <br /> Public Utilities Comm. vs . Co. Roadway, 165 Colo. <br /> 1 , 437 P. 2d 44 , 48 (1968) . <br /> To issue an order without having given proper notice <br /> requires the Court to find the order invalid and set aside the <br /> agency decision, Henderson vs . Industrial Commission, 35 Colo . Apo. <br /> 124, 529 P. 2d 651 , 652 '11975) ; Alcott Pharmacy , Inc . vs . State <br /> Board of Pharmacies, 35 Colo. App. , 531 P . 2d 987, 9B9 (1975) . <br /> The Board must strictly comply with the statutory requirements <br /> or its actions will be held void. Colorado State Board of <br /> Medical Examiners vs_ Hohu, 129 Colo. 145 , 268 P. 2d 401, 404 <br /> ( 1954) . Compliance with the statutory provisions is essential <br /> -13- <br />