My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-05-10_REVISION - C1981013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981013
>
2007-05-10_REVISION - C1981013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:52 PM
Creation date
8/7/2009 3:54:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/10/2007
Doc Name
DRMS Brief in Support of NOV CV2007001, Civil Penalty & Proposed Decision on SI
Type & Sequence
SI1
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.
/
100
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
civil action and the Division's issuance of the NOV. §§ 34-33-121 and <br />135(6), C.R.S. <br />Also, the parties are root identical since the Division is the only entity that <br />can issue the NOV and therefore the NOV could not have been heard by the <br />court. See In re Marriage of Wright, 841 P.2d 358 (Colo. App. 1992) <br />(defense of claim preclusion does not apply when the initial. forum lacked <br />the authority to award full measure of relief sought in subsequent litigation). <br />i <br />To illustrate the differences in the NOV and the court action, one can look to <br />the Meyer r case. In that case a driver was charged in a criminal action with <br />driving under the influence. The driver was also subject to a license <br />revocation hearing. The Court of Appeals held that although the subject <br />matter of the two proceedings was identical, the claims for relief were not. <br />In the judicial action', the driver was in jeopardy of a criminal conviction, <br />incarceration and fines. In the administrative action, he was in jeopardy of <br />having points assessed against his driving record and losing his driving <br />privilege. Therefore, the doctrine of claim preclusion did not apply to bar <br />the license revocation proceeding. <br />As in the Mier case, here, the remedies and parties are not the same. <br />DRMS is the party, not the Tatums and DRMS is issuing the NOV for <br />regulatory compliance issues. Therefore, the doctrine of claim preclusion <br />does not apply to bar; the Division's action. See Meyer, supra. <br />ii <br />e <br />In anticipation of the; possibility that Basin Resources will attempt to re-try <br />the issue of subsidence and material damage determined by the trial court in <br />case no. 01 CA 026, ;the Division states it cannot do so under the doctrine of <br />issue preclusion. <br />i <br />Issue preclusion is aA equitable doctrine intended to relieve parties of <br />multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources and promote reliance on the <br />judicial system by preventing inconsistent decisions. In the matter of the <br />Application for Water Rights of Elk Dance Colorado LLC 139 P. 3d 660 <br />(Colo. 2006). <br />Issue preclusion applies to bar re-litigation of an issue when: (1) the <br />precluded issue is identical to the issue actually and necessarily decided at <br />17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.