My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE34652
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE34652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:30 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:17:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
MLRB COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
Violation No.
CV2000009
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Plaintiffs judicial review challenge to the Boazd's order is. in essence. a challenge to the Board's <br />authority to interpret its jurisdiction under an organic statute. As such, the Plaintiffs. in order to <br />prevail. will have to prove to this Court that the Board's interpretation was wrong. <br />[T]he interpretation placed upon a starute by the agency vested with authority to <br />administer or to enforce that statute is entitled to deference, provided the interpretation adopted <br />is a reasonable one.'' Gr n;~=-e •~ Colorado Oil zna !=as Com^'::, 7 P3.d 1050, 1053 (Colo. <br />App. 1999) (citing Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Orth, 965 P.2d 1246 (Colo. 1998)). See <br />also Rvals v. St. Marv-Corwin Renional Medical Center, 10 P.3d 654, 660 (Colo. 2000) (Court <br />will "defer to an agency's own interpretation of its statutory mandate."); Colorado State <br />Personnel Boazd v. Department of Corrections, 988 P.2d 1147, 1 I ~ 1 (Colo. ] 999) (Court gives <br />deference to agency's reasonable interpretation of its starute "that will assist in lightening the <br />agency's workload and making its decision-making process more efficient ...."). Furthermore, <br />"if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, [the Court] give[s] great <br />deference to an agency's interpretation of the statute, looking only to whether the agency's <br />[determination] is based on a pertrrissible construction of the statute." Smith v. Farmers Ins. <br />Exchanee, 9 P.3d 335, 340 (Colo. 2000) (citing Chevron U.S.A.. Inc. v. Natural Resources <br />nPfPnse t'nuncil. Inc., 467 U.S. R37, 843 (19841 and U.S. West. Irc. v. Federal Communications <br />Comm'n, 182 F.3d 1224, 1231 (10'~ Cir. 1999)) (emphasis added). <br />The Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act does not explicitly give the Division <br />the authority to vacate a notice of violation. The statute gives the Division the authority to issue <br />a notice of violation, y 34-33-123(2), C.R.S., and to assess a civil penalty and hold a settlement <br />conference, § 34-33-123(8), C.R.S. On the other hand, the Division's authority to vacate a <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.