 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Broadnax3/23/1992
rm the district court's entry of award.
JUSTICE KIRSHBAUM Dissents, and JUSTICE LOHR joins in the Dissent.
Disposition
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
JUSTICE KIRSHBAUM Dissenting.
The majority states that "the requirements of due process of law" measure State Farm's right of access to the judicial process as established by article II, sections 3 and 6, of the Colorado Constitution and ultimately concludes that the compulsory arbitration provisions of section 10-4-708(1.5), 4A C.R.S. (1990 Supp.), satisfy that standard. Because legislation restricting the constitutionally guaranteed right of access to courts to protect property interests abridges a fundamental right, requiring heightened scrutiny analysis, and because the judicial review provisions of the statute fail to satisfy either strict scrutiny or due process standards, I respectfully Dissent from the majority's Conclusion.
I
Questions concerning the scope and application of the access to courts provisions of article II, section 6, have been considered by this court in various contexts. We have found substantive and procedural innovations created by the General Assembly in our Workers' Compensation Act to be compatible with that section. Curtiss v. GSX Corp. of Colorado, 774 P.2d 873 (Colo. 1989); O'Quinn v. Walt Disney Prods., Inc., 177 Colo. 190, 493 P.2d 344 (1972). We have held that in special circumstances a trial court may enjoin an individual from instituting litigation pro se without violating right of access standards. Board of County Comm'rs v. Winslow, 706 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1018, 89 L. Ed. 2d 317, 106 S. Ct. 1204 (1986); People v. Spencer, 185 Colo. 377, 524 P.2d 1084 (1974). Most recently in Firelock v. District Court, 776 P.2d 1090, 1096 (Colo. 1989), we rejected a challenge based on article II, section 6, to provisions of the Colorado Mandatory Arbitration Act, §§ 13-22-401 to 409, 6A C.R.S. (1987), requiring compulsory arbitration of claims as a condition to the initiation of litigation of civil cases wherein the amount in controversy did not exceed the sum of $50,000. In view of the posture of those cases, we were not required to articulate the nature of the right of access guarantee of article II, section 6, as it relates to the rights specified by article II, section 3. This case requires such analysis.
Article II, section 3, provides as follows:
Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Colo. Const. art. II, § 3.
Article II, section 6, provides as follows:
Equality of Justice. Courts of Justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and Justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Colo. Const. art. II, § 6. Article II, section 3, enumerates specific rights guaranteed to all Coloradoans, one of which is the right to acquire, possess and protect property. It is not insignificant that the section captioned "inalienable rights" constitutes the first substantive provision of the Colorado bill of rights. See Heath v. Sears, Roebuck
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|