My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:28 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 2:35:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/14/2011
Doc Name
Opening Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
Email Name
DB2
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.
/
33
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
powers that the constitution vests in another branch .... It is generally agreed that the essence <br />of judicial power is the ability to carry a judgment into effect. "). <br />This basic separation of judicial and executive branch powers is codified by Colorado <br />statute. Section § 24- 4- 106(3) provides the constitutionally proper mechanism for enforcement <br />of an agency order: <br />An action may be commenced in any court of competent <br />jurisdiction by or on behalf of any agency for judicial enforcement <br />of any final order of such agency. In any such action, any person <br />adversely affected or aggrieved by such agency action may obtain <br />judicial review of such agency action. <br />Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24 -4- 106(3). This statutory provision preserves the rightful role of the <br />judiciary, rather than the executive branch, to enforce agency orders (and, if necessary, to compel <br />compliance). <br />If this Court were to interpret the Act, as the Division contends, to give the Board <br />contempt power to compel compliance with its own orders, the result would raise serious <br />constitutional concerns regarding the appropriate separation of power between the judicial and <br />executive branches of government. There is no reason to become entangled in this constitutional <br />thicket, especially where the plain language of Section 124(7) does not purport to give the Board <br />contempt power in the first place. "In construing legislation [courts] seek to avoid <br />interpretations that invoke constitutional deficiencies." Adams County School Dist. No. 50 v. <br />5 This conclusion — that the legislature did not intend to give contempt power to an <br />administrative agency — is further demonstrated by the fact that administrative agencies must <br />petition a court to enforce witness subpoenas or punish for contempt. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24- <br />4- 105(5); Feigin v. Zinn, 789 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990) ( "Inherent in the court's <br />authority to compel testimony is the power to punish for contempt, which is a judicial power <br />within the meaning of the constitution. That power belongs exclusively to the courts in the <br />absence of a constitutional vestiture of such power upon another body or agency. "). <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.