My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE36148
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE36148
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:34 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:56:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/23/2007
Doc Name
Statement of Reasons in Support of Petition For Review of Basin Resources
From
Davis Graham & Stubbs Inc
To
DRMS
Violation No.
CV2007001
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.
/
15
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
administrative enforcement realm because they lack the patience to pursue their judicial <br />enforcement remedies. <br />2. The Division Does Not Have Authority to Provide Security For Court <br />Awarded Money Judgments <br />Administrative agencies, including the Division, are constrained in their actions by the <br />scope of authority delegated to them by statute. See Hawes v. Colo. Div. of Ins.; 65 P,3d 1008, <br />1016 (Colo. 2003) ("As creatures of statutes lacking any independent constitutional pedigree, <br />agencies cannot invoke some kind of inherent authority to justify actions that find no warrant in <br />their enabling legislation"). Administrative actions not based on express statutory authority or <br />contrary to statutory directives aze void. See Flavell v. Dept of Welfaze, 355 P.2d 941, 943 <br />(Colo. 1960) ("[c]ollateral attack maybe made here for `acts or orders [of administrative officers <br />or agencies] which do not come cleazly within the powers granted or which fall beyond the <br />purview of the statute granting the agency or body its powers [such orders] are not merely <br />erroneous, but aze void"') (alteration in original). <br />The Division derives its authority from the Coal Act. The Division was not delegated <br />authority to execute upon monetary judgments of the district courts concerning third parties, and <br />that absence of delegation is controlling. See, ~ People v. Lowrie, 761 P.2d 778, 780-781 <br />(Colo. 1988) ("The Colorado Constitution divides the powers of government into three distinct <br />departments-the legislative, executive, and judicial-and provides that no persons or <br />collections of persons charged with the exercise of powers belonging to one of those departments <br />shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly directed <br />or permitted by the constitution"). The Division's own regulations specify the permissible bases <br />for issuing an NOV: "violation of the Act, these Rules, or any permit " See 2 Colo. Code Reg. <br />407-2, § 5.03.2(2)(a). None of those bases are at issue, or aze even claimed by the Division to be <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.