ENFORCE30860 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

District Court, Counry of Las Animas and, despite noting the similarity of some of the current cracks at Solitario to cracks he observed in 1994, concluc'ing that "]t]he damage does not appear to be oriented in direction as would be expected if mine subsidence was causing the problem").' Basin has thus indicated that, if allowed to do so, it intends to challenge Notice of V iolation No. CV- 2000-009 on the ground that coal mine subsidence at the Golden Eagle Mine could never have damaged Solitario. In light of the district court's settled ruling to the contrary, the law flatly prohibits this Board from receiving or considering such evidence. To advance the public interest in the finality ofjudicial decisions and to avoid the waste of time and expense relitigating issues once courts have decided them, the Supreme Court of Colorado has held that: Collateral estoppel bazs relitigation of an issue determined at a prior proceeding if (1) the issue precluded is identical to an issue actually litigated and necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) the party. against whom estoppel is sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.... Collateral estoppel renders a final decision of an adjudicative body on an issue actually litigated conclusive as to that issue in a subsequent action. Pomeroy v. Wairkus, 183 Colo. 344, 350-51, 517 P.2d 396, 399 (1973). The issue of whether coal mine subsidence caused the cracking and other damage that Solitario sustained prior to December 1, 1997, meets each of the criteria for invoking the doctrine. DMG and the Tatums attach as Exhibit C to this motion a copy of Mr. Thompson's letter. -3-