ENFORCE22351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that such an order does not "beaz the marks of a final agency decision." ]d. at 621; see also Keystone v. Flynn, 769 P.2d 484, 489-90 (Colo. 1989) (agency action not subject to review until agency resolves all the issues between the parties). The court noted that where an order will result in further proceedings, review is premature because the party seeking review maybe satisfied by the final outcome of the administrative process. Similazly, in this matter the Boazd has yet to adjudicate Basin Resource's contest of the NOV. The Plaintiffs maybe satisfied, indeed pleased, by the outcome of that adjudication. Where the administrative process has not resulted in a final adjudication of the rights of the parties, that process is not subject to judicial review. Colorado Health, 689 P.2d at 621. The Colorado Supreme Court also noted that the fact that an agency -like the Boazd in the present matter -has decided a purely legal issue does not give rise to itnmedi~te judicial review. Id. at 622. "Administrative proceedings at least implicitly include legal determinations of the agency's jurisdiction under an organic statute, but such determinations generally are not reviewable until the conclusion of the proceedings." Id.; accord Kendal v. Cason, 791 P.2d 1227, 1229 (Colo. App. 1980) ("Even if pure questions of law are concerned, agency review of challenged action is desirable in order to provide the court with the benefit of the agency's considered interpretation of its enabling statute."). The Application is devoid of any assertion by the Plaintiffs that they will suffer irreparable injury if temporary relief is not granted. Cf. Colo. Rev. Star. ;; 24-4-106(8) (Colorado Administrative Procedure Act; standard for interlocutory review requiring a showing of irreparable injury in order to enjoin agency proceedine which is "clearly beyond" the -4-