My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-08-11_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-08-11_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:36:47 PM
Creation date
10/17/2011 12:01:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/11/2011
Doc Name
Joint Answer Brief
From
MLRB and DRMS
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.
/
31
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
or rule under review." C.R.S. § 24- 4- 106(7) (2010) (emphasis added). Cotter's argument is also <br />contrary to the Supreme Court's holding in Lopez, which explicitly recognizes an agency's <br />authority to enforce its order. Cotter's interpretation would cripple state government by dictating <br />that an agency's only recourse against a regulated party that refused to obey a lawful order is to <br />file for an injunction in district court. <br />The General Assembly provided that the Board may impose cease - and - desist orders and <br />assess civil penalties as tools to carry out its regulatory mandate. Both the Board and the <br />Division were statutorily obligated to pursue enforcement against Cotter in the absence of a stay. <br />See C.R.S. § 34 -32 -124 (2010). The December Order was appropriate under the Act and did not <br />violate constitutional separation of powers. <br />V. The August and December Orders are Sufficiently Specific to Inform a Person of <br />Ordinary Intelligence of the Conduct that will Subject them to Liability. <br />A) The Board's orders are not void for vagueness because they are <br />understandable to a person of common intelligence. <br />The Board's orders are clear and understandable. The vagueness doctrine is rooted in the <br />right to due process of law, which requires that a law or order provide fair warning of the <br />conduct prohibited. People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 172 (Colo. 2006). Under this standard, a law <br />or order is not void for vagueness if it fairly describes the conduct forbidden, and persons of <br />common intelligence can readily understand its meaning and application. Id. The clarity of a <br />ban is viewed in light of the subject party's knowledge that his or her conduct was prohibited. <br />Id. The party asserting unconstitutional vagueness bears the burden of proof beyond a <br />reasonable doubt. Id. <br />NO <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.