Laserfiche WebLink
government are acts of another agency, in this limited context. <br /> In Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1939) , <br /> the United States Supreme Court emphasized the substance over the <br /> form of how a government acts, stating: <br /> Identity of parties is not a mere matter of <br /> form, but of substance. Parties nominally <br /> the same may be, in legal effect, <br /> different . . . and parties nominally <br /> different may be, in legal effect, the same. <br /> There is privity between officers of the same <br /> government so that a judgment in a suit <br /> between a party and a representative of the <br /> United States is res judicata in relitigation <br /> of the same issue between that party and <br /> another officer of the United States. <br /> "This logical analysis of the federal bureaucracy applies with <br /> equal . . . force to the State of Colorado. The Court therefore <br /> concludes that for purposes of res judicata, the party is the <br /> same in both proceedings. It is the State of Colorado; acti g <br /> through the MLRD in the first action and the WQCD in the sec nd <br /> action. <br /> "The Attorney General argues that the bar of res <br /> judicata should be applied with caution and that public policy <br /> disfavors it. The Court does apply it� with caution, and only on <br /> the facts adduced in this docket. The more focused public policy <br /> can be found in Salida School Dist. R-32-J v. Morrison, <br /> 732 P. 2d 1160 (Colo. 1987) , where the Court explained the purpose <br /> of the doctrine as follows: <br /> The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res <br /> judicata 'relieve parties of the cost and <br /> vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve <br /> judicial resources, and, by preventing <br /> inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on <br /> adjudication. ' <br /> 11 <br />