Laserfiche WebLink
exacerbated this problem by including a cease - and - desist order that provides no definition of the <br />prohibited conduct. <br />Finally, the December 2010 Order is unlawful because the Board refused to consider <br />Cotter's evidence that compliance with the August 2010 Order and its deadline were impossible. <br />Under established law, impossibility is a valid defense to the imposition of civil penalties or a <br />cease - and - desist order in these circumstances. The Board abused its discretion by depriving <br />Cotter of its right to defend itself <br />Each of these legal deficiencies in the December 2010 Order requires the Court to set <br />aside the order and restrain its enforcement. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. Standard of Review <br />"In cases involving judicial review of agency actions, the court must determine all <br />questions of law and interpret the statutory provisions involved and must apply such <br />interpretations to the facts established; and if the court finds that the agency action is in excess of <br />statutory authority or is otherwise contrary to law, then the court must set aside the agency action <br />... and remand the case for further proceedings." Kennedy v. Public Employees' Retirement <br />Ass 'n, 768 P.2d 1264, 1266 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). The court "reviews de novo an agency's <br />statutory and regulatory interpretations." Koehler v. Colorado Dep't of Healthcare Policy and <br />Financing, No. 09CA1965, 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1921, at *10 (Colo. Ct. App. Dec. 23, <br />2010), cert. denied, 2011 Colo. LEXIS 388 (Colo. May 9, 2011). The court also "review[s] an <br />administrative agency's conclusions of law de novo." Specialty Rests. Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d <br />393, 397 (Colo. 2010). The court must "reverse an administrative agency's determination if the <br />8 <br />