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
Facilities. the Colorado Boazd of Health considered an appeal from a decision made by a heazing <br />officer based in part on an argument that the hearing officer had exceeded his jurisdiction in <br />considering certain facts. The Board of Health reached the legal conclusion that the hearing <br />officer had exceeded his jurisdiction and authority, and, on that conclusion, remanded the matter <br />to the hearing officer for further proceedings. Parties to the matter immediately sought judicial <br />review of the Board of Health's order in Denver District Court. The Board of Health, as well as <br />other parties, filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matterjurisdiction, but the district court, <br />without even the benefit of briefing on [he issue of jurisdiction, heard azgument and denied the <br />motions. The Boazd of Health filed a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court for a writ of <br />prohibition against the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court held in <br />favor of the Boazd of Health that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the interim <br />decision of the Boazd of Health. Id. at 620-21. <br />In Colorado Health Facilities the Supreme Court stated very cleazly why the relief sought <br />by Plaintiffs in this case is inappropriate: <br />... [T]hat the boazd[]'s decision concerned a legal issue of statutory interpretation <br />does not lead inescapably to the conclusion that immediate judicial review is <br />appropriate. Admittistrative proceedings at least implicitly include legal <br />determinations of the agency's jurisdiction under an organic statute, but such <br />determinations generally are not reviewed until the conclusion of the nroceedings. <br />Colorado Health, 689 P.2d at 621. Here, the Board reached the legal conclusion that the <br />Division did not have the authority, under the statutes, to unilaterally vacate the NOV without <br />prejudice without approval of the Board. In short, the Boazd was merely making a legal <br />determination of the agency's jurisdiction under the organic statute prior to the conclusion of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.