Table Services, Ltd. v. Hickenlooper, 257 P.3d 1210

Amendment 42 increased Colorado's minimum wage to $6.85 starting 2007 and required annual inflation adjustments.
Inflation adjustments are to be based on a CPI used for Colorado, enabling DBG-CPI to be used for Colorado.
DOL issued enabling regulations and began applying DBG-CPI annually to calculate adjustments (e.g., $7.02 in 2008).
Plaintiffs, rural-oriented restaurants/hotels, challenged the amendment as void for vagueness and asserted DOL exceeded authority.
District court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding the provision not void for vagueness and DBG-CPI a reasonable index; authority affirmed.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued vagueness and overbroad agency authority; court affirmed the dismissal and upheld Amendment 42 and DOL's use of DBG-CPI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness of the CPI phrase	Hicklen v. Amendment 42 is void for vagueness.	Amendment 42 provides a workable standard using the CPI used for Colorado.	Not void for vagueness; reasonable interpretation uses a Colorado-related CPI (DBG-CPI) when appropriate.
DOL authority to use DBG-CPI	DOL exceeded authority by selecting DBG-CPI for annual adjustments.	Amendment 42 empowers DOL to determine the CPI used for Colorado; DBG-CPI is reasonable and used for Colorado.	DOLdid not exceed authority; DBG-CPI reasonable interpretation under Amendment 42 and statutory delegation.

Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness standard; general terms may be valid if reasonably applied)
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) (illustrates danger of indefiniteness in local wage provisions)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (requires showing a statute is valid under plausible interpretations)
Stamm v. City & County of Denver, 856 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1993) (generality does not equal vagueness; balanced approach to broad terms)