My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE37501
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE37501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:46:28 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:35:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/23/2001
Doc Name
THE TATUMS MOTION TO DISMISS
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.
/
17
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
enforcement agency's decision to preserve its authority to take enforcement action in the future. See <br />Chonoski v. State Dept. of Revenue, 699 P.2d 416 (Colo. App. 1985) ("Trial courts lack jurisdiction <br />to enjoin administrative agencies from performing their statutory functions ...Premature judicial <br />interference ...violates the principle of separation of powers' (citations omitted); see also 2 <br />American jurisprudence 2d, AdrninistrativeLnw § 497. This is so because, in providing for review <br />of actual enforcement actions, such statutes vest the enforcement agency with discretion whether to <br />issue enforcement action in future circumstances. Unless and until actually exercised, such <br />discretion is not a proper subject of judicial review. <br />Because $asin challenges only DMG's decision to preserve its authority to take future <br />enforcement action, rather than DMG's decision to set aside the enforcement action it took against <br />Basin last yeaz, this Court lacks jurisdiction of Basin's petition and complaint. Alternatively, the <br />petition and complaint fails to state a claim for which this Court tray grant relief. <br />C. Basin Has Failed to Exhaust Administrative Retnedies With Respect to Future <br />Enforcement Action That the Company Seeks to Prohibit. <br />This Court also lacks jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of DMG's decision to preserve <br />its future enforcement authority because $asin has not -and cannot now -exhaust the Coal Act's <br />clear requirement that administrative review of enforcement action precede judicial review. See <br />Kendal v. Cason, 791 P.2d 1227, 1228 (Colo. App. 1990) ("The general rule is that the failure to <br />exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review is a jurisdictional defect") (citing <br />Ho,Jj'irwn v. Colorado State Bd. of AssessmentAppeals, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo.1984)); see also Mullins <br />Coal Co. v. Clark. 759 F.2d ] 142,1145-1146 (4th Cir.1985) (coal operators may not properly attack <br />SMC12A enforcement action in the courts without first exhausting available administrative <br />-10- <br />!l9-d Bl0/El0'd OE9-1 B99E998EOE S3~a00538 ~Vdf11VN 100-W08d 6l~Zl IBBZ-EZ-9flY <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.