Laserfiche WebLink
~~, ! <br />i <br />versy or the apparent merit cr lack thereof cf any individual <br />opponent's case. These defendants. as officials of the <br />State of Colorado. have a duty to enforce one execute the <br />laws of the state. khen their performance of those duties <br />is challenged in court' these defendants do not and car.nct <br />condition the amount of time to be devoted to a particular <br />case -- and hence. the quality of their defense -- on the <br />amount in controversy. This is especially true where the <br />challenge involves the officials' enforcement, against <br />self-confessed violators. cf laws enacted to protect the <br />public health. safety. and welfara. Considerations of public <br />policy in enforcing and upholding the integrity of the law <br />weigh equally heavily whether the amount at stake is E200 <br />or E2GO,OOG. If government agencies were to adopt a strict <br />dollars-and-cents approach to litigation and accore cases <br />involving smaller sums a less strenuous defense than those <br />involving larger amounts, the result could be a de_facto li- <br />cense to violate the law so long as the offense were not <br />too egregious. <br />Moreover' while the amount in controversy may properly <br />be considered, the Supreme Court has ruled on several occa- <br />sions that it is only one of a number of factors and cannot <br />control the court's determination. E_g.+ Mau v._E.?.H_ <br />Core.' _~ Colo. ~, 638 P.2d 777 (1981); Hartman_v._ Freedrtan. <br />- 3- <br />