Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Forty Seven Co., 195 Colo. 478, 579 P.2d 636 (l978); Us. v. Northern Colorado <br />, <br />Conservancy District, 608 F.2d 422 (loth Cit. 1979). <br /> <br />5. Stipulations are appropriate in this we of circumstance where a party stipulates <br />or makes an agreement concerning a valuab'e property right. Moreover, the Court <br />should recognize such stipulation when such stipulation does not violate rules of public <br />policy. Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1986). Court approval of a stipulation is <br />especially appropriate in a case such as this Iwhere no questions of law are raised and <br />where the stipulation does not create manif'ist injustice. Bar 70 Enterprises, Inc. v. <br />Tasca Corp., 703 P.2d 1297 (Colo. 1985); l,ake Meredith Reservoir Co. v. Amiti Mut. <br />Irri. Co., 698 P.2d 1340 (Colo. ]985). ' <br /> <br />6. There are no other objectors in this matter. This case is ready for the Court to rule on <br />the proposed decree. <br /> <br />7. Counsel for the CWCB has conferred with Andrew Peternell, Counsel for the <br />objector, who has consented to this Motion. <br /> <br />WHEREFORE the CWCB moves this Court to enter an Order approving the <br />Stipulation entered into between the CWCB and Trout Unlimited, and enter the attached <br />Findings and Ruling of the Water Court. <br /> <br />Dated this 10th day of February, 2005. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />JOHN IW. SUTHERS <br /> <br />Attorney General <br />I <br /> <br />E-filedpursuaht to c.R.c.P. 12l. Duly signed original on file at the Office of <br />the Atto~;(General.---:~ <br />/s/1fl(j, a . -' ~ <br />A <br />/,.f" <br />"'A&- -iRA-t-:- S* <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Natural Resources and Environment Section <br />Attorneys for CWCB <br />*Counsel of Record <br /> <br /> <br />, <br />2 <br />, <br />