Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />" <br /> <br />5. Stipulations are appropriate in this type of circumstance where a party <br />stipulates or makes an agreement concerning a valuable 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 ofa stipulation is <br />especially appropriate in a case such as this where no questions oflaw are raised and where <br />the stipulation does not create manifest injustice. Bar 70 Enterprises. Inc. v. Tasca Corp., <br />703 P.2d 1297 (Colo. 1985); Lake Meredith Reservoir Co. v. Amiti Mut. Irri. Co., 698 P.2d <br />1340 (Colo. 1985). <br /> <br />6. Counsel for the CWCB has conferred with Andrew Peternell, Counsel for <br />the 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 Referee and Decree of the Water Court. <br /> <br />Dated this 7th day of April, 2006. <br /> <br />JOHN W. SUTHERS <br /> <br />Attorney General <br />E-filed purSl;Iant to C.R.C.P. 121. Duly signed original on file <br />at the Office of the Attorney General. <br />/s/ Virginia Brann_0 . <br /> <br />\ r:;,~.~i/: Ua>M^,,'-- <br /> <br />VIRGINiA BRANNON, ESQ. <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Natural Resources and Environment Section <br /> <br />Attorneys for CWCB <br />Counsel of Record <br /> <br />