Laserfiche WebLink
JUDGE VAN CISE dissenting. <br /> I respectfully dissent. <br /> I agree with the trial court's October 24, 1992 order that <br /> the proceedings before Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) and <br /> Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) " . . . involved the same <br /> parties (the State of Colorado) , an identity of subject matter, <br /> identity of administrative claims for relief, and a final <br /> judgment of MLRD. Therefore, the decision of MLRD in the form of <br /> a Settlement Agreement . . . is res judicata and bars the later <br /> WQCD proceedings. Therefore, the WQCD Findings, Ruling, and <br /> Order [entered October 10, 1990) are void. " <br /> I further agree with the trial court' s analysis in which it <br /> stated: <br /> "Res judicata applies to administrative proceedings, as well <br /> as traditional court suits. <br /> While the doctrines of res judicata and <br /> collateral estoppel were developed in the <br /> context of judicial proceedings, it is now <br /> well settled that in a proper case they may <br /> be applied to administrative proceedings as <br /> well. Umberfield v. School Dist. No. 11, <br /> 185 Colo. 165, 522 P. 2d 730, 732 (1974) . <br /> "Res judicata may therefore be applied to an administrative <br /> hearing, Whelden v. Board of County Comn'rs, 782 P. 2d 853 (Colo. <br /> App. 1989) , and it operates to bar a second action on the same <br /> claim as one litigated in a prior proceeding when 'there is a <br /> final judgment, identity of subject matter, claims for relief, <br /> and parties to the action. ' City & County of Denver v. Block <br /> 9 <br />