Laserfiche WebLink
evidence has probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent persons in the <br />conduct of their affairs." Id. Cotter violated provisions of the Act incorporated in the permit by <br />statutory reference. Cotter did not dispute the facts underlying this violation, namely that it <br />refused to implement Corrective Actions 2 and 3. Thus, it is reasonable and prudent to conclude <br />that an examination of the permit itself would provide little probative value. <br />C) The Division provided Cotter with sufficient notice of the provisions alleged to <br />be violated and the facts constituting the violation. <br />The Act requires that the Division provide notice of "the provision alleged to be violated <br />and the facts alleged to constitute the violation." C.R.S. § 34- 32- 124(1) (2010). The Notice <br />alleges pertinent violations of the Act and the Rules. Both the Act and the Rules dictate that a <br />violation of the Act or the Rules is a violation of a permit provision. Even if Cotter disagreed <br />with this legal interpretation, it was informed of all the issues of law and fact, and that the Board <br />may issue a cease and desist order and/or assess civil penalties at the November Hearing. <br />R:0051. Cotter had ample opportunity to argue each of those issues. <br />Cotter raises yet another formalistic argument with respect to the Notice. Cotter argues <br />that, in order to pursue civil penalties, the Division must specifically allege a permit violation in <br />its Notice, even where the same operative facts constitute violations of the Act, Rules, and <br />permit. This interpretation holds the administrative process to a higher standard than the judicial <br />process. Under Colorado's judicial system of notice pleading, "the precise legal theory asserted <br />by a claimant is not controlling, so long as the complaint gives sufficient notice of the transaction <br />sued upon." C.R.C.P. 8; Yoder v. Hooper, 695 P.2d 1182, 1185 (Colo. App. 1984), affd, 737 <br />6 Furthermore, it would have been extremely impractical to admit the permit into evidence because <br />Cotter's permit consists of 826 different documents dating as far back as October 18, 1971. <br />19 <br />