Ginny's Kids International, Inc. v. Office of Secretary of State

29 P.3d 333 (2000)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ginny’s Kids International, Inc. v. Office of Secretary of State

Colorado Court of Appeals
29 P.3d 333 (2000)

Facts

Beginning in 1982, the Arvada, Colorado Kiwanis Club (the club) had a project called Ginny’s Kids, which held raffles to raise money to send children with life-threatening illnesses on dream vacations. In 1988, the club formed the Kiwanis Club of Arvada Foundation (the foundation) as a tax-exempt charitable organization. The foundation had the authority to raise and spend money in the name of Ginny’s Kids. In 1996, some foundation members wanted to begin using the Ginny’s Kids funds for other purposes. Opponents of that idea formed Ginny’s Kids International, Inc. (GKI) (plaintiff) as a separate charitable organization to continue the original dream-vacation purpose. The foundation transferred all of the Ginny’s Kids funds in its bank accounts to GKI and amended its bylaws to remove any reference to Ginny’s Kids. The foundation continued operating for other charitable purposes. In 1998, GKI applied to the Colorado Secretary of State (the secretary) (defendant) for a bingo-raffle license, but the secretary denied the application because GKI had not been in existence for five years, as required by a Colorado statute. An administrative-law judge upheld the secretary’s decision, and GKI appealed. On appeal, GKI argued that GKI should be considered the foundation’s successor because GKI had taken over the foundation’s role with respect to the mission of Ginny’s Kids. According to GKI, its alleged successor status meant that GKI could add its time in existence to the foundation’s time in existence to satisfy the statutory five-year requirement. GKI alternatively asserted that because it was essentially the same organization as the original Ginny’s Kids that began in 1982, its time prior to incorporation as GKI should be counted toward satisfying the five-year requirement.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Casebolt, J.)

Dissent (Taubman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership