Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute over costs following an appeal between Mack’s Plumbing, Heating, Inc., the defendant, and Adams County School District No. 27-J, the plaintiff. After a favorable decision on appeal for the defendant, the plaintiff's subsequent petition for writ of certiorari was denied. The defendant sought $116 in costs from the plaintiff, invoking C.A.R. 39(c) as the prevailing party. The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting its exemption from costs due to its status as a political subdivision of the state, as supported by Supreme Court of Colorado Directive 85-21. This directive generally exempts state entities from cost judgments. However, the court determined that while state entities are typically exempt, fees related to appeal preparations could still be assessed, provided they align with those charged to private litigants. The court thus granted the defendant's motion for costs, totaling $116, which included a $75 filing fee and a $41 reproduction charge. The decision was concurred by Judges Metzger and Criswell, and the mandate was amended to reflect this ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Charging of Fees Related to Appeal Preparationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite the general exemption for state entities, the court allowed the charging of specific fees related to appeal preparation, aligning with those for private litigants.
Reasoning: However, it clarifies that the directive does not preclude the charging of fees related to appeal preparations, which should align with those charged to private litigants.
Entitlement to Costs as Prevailing Party under C.A.R. 39(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant, having succeeded on appeal, claimed entitlement to costs from the plaintiff pursuant to C.A.R. 39(c).
Reasoning: The defendant claims entitlement to costs as the prevailing party under C.A.R. 39(c).
Exemption of State Entities from Cost Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff argued it was exempt from costs due to its status as a political subdivision, referencing Supreme Court of Colorado Directive 85-21.
Reasoning: The plaintiff contests this, citing its status as a political subdivision of the state, which typically exempts it from being liable for costs.