Laserfiche WebLink
MAR -03 -2003 16:02 FROM -DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T -823 P.006 /008 F -720 <br />as Golden, Vail, and Breckenridge"); Id. at 5 (referring to the "Whitewater Cases "); Id. at 6 <br />(referring to the "Whitewater Cases "); Td. at 19 -21 (raising comparative issues regarding the <br />Golden Case and Vail Case as a basis to overturn the Breckenridge Case). In view of the <br />foregoing, the State inserted issues from the Golden and Vail Cases into this appeal. <br />2. In Footnote 1 on page 2 of the State's Opening Brief, the State asserts: <br />In an effort to streamline this Brief, the State has not again briefed at length all the issues <br />raised in the Go_ ld brief, but by limiting this Brief s length does not waive those issues. <br />The issues raised in the Opening Brief in the Vail case are also substantially the same, but <br />with more issues discussed at length than in this brief. <br />This footnote can only be interpreted as an attempt to impliedly incorporate by reference the <br />issues raised by the State in the Golden Case, as well as those in its brief submitted in the Vail <br />Case. <br />3. The footnnotc the Statc seeks to strike in Breckcnridge's Answer Brief reads as follows: <br />This fall, this Court received briefing and heard oral arguments in a similar case <br />("Golden case "). See State Ene'r v. City of Golden, Case No. 01 SA252. This Court <br />will also review similar issues in this case's companion case ("Vail case "). See State <br />Ene'r y. Eagle Diver Water & Sanitation Dist., Case No. 02SA224. Breckenridge does <br />not waive any arguments asserted in either the Vail or Golden cases, including <br />arguments raised by amieus parties on Golden's behalf in the Golden case, that are not <br />extensively briefed herein; however, to avoid repetition, Breckenridge has not re- briefed <br />some issues extensively briefed in the Golden case. <br />4. The footnote the State seeks to strike is a proper response to the footnote from the State's <br />Opening Brief quoted in Paragraph 2 above, which contains an incorporation by reference <br />virtually identical to that of which the State now complains. <br />5. The simple fact is the Breckenridge and Vail cases were tried together with a consolidated <br />closing argument as a matter of trial efficiency. This was made possible because the cases were <br />very similar and the opposition was limited primarily to policy arguments. The issues raised in <br />these two cases are also substantially similar to those already raised in the Golden Case in which <br />there were several hundred pages of briefing on appeal by the parties and amici. There is no <br />reason why this Court cannot enjoy some of the same efficiencies as the trial court to avoid <br />repetition. The State recognized this fact in its own brief when it preserved its earlier arguments <br />by reference. The State cites no law that prohibits reference to, or incorporation of, appellate <br />briefs that address the same legal issues when done for the sake of brevity and efficiency. The <br />State's Motion seeks to obtain an advantage by striking such references when made by the <br />Applicants, yet relying upon the same in the State's Opening Brief. <br />AB0072 -2- <br />