Laserfiche WebLink
this context, an agency's decision is considered a final judgment <br /> on the merits only if the agency has acted in a quasi-judicial <br /> capacity and has properly resolved disputed issues of fact after <br /> the parties have been given an adequate opportunity to litigate <br /> the issues. Montoya v. Colorado Springs, 770 P. 2d 1358 (Colo. <br /> App. 1989) ; see also Industrial Commission v. Moffat County <br /> School District RE No. 1, 732 P.2d 616 (Colo. 1987) . <br /> However, before the doctrine may be applied in <br /> administrative proceedings, it must appear that the first agency <br /> to address the claim in question had jurisdiction to resolve that <br /> claim. See Peterkin v. Industrial Commission, 698 P. 2d 1353 <br /> (Colo. App. 1985) , aff 'd on other grounds, 729 P. 2d 977 (Colo. <br /> 1986) (doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not <br /> apply if agency lacks jurisdiction to grant relief requested) ; <br /> see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Messina, P. 2d (Colo. <br /> No. 93SC172 , May 16, 1994) (doctrine of collateral estoppel does <br /> not apply if agency implicitly resolves a factual issue which is <br /> unnecessary for determination of claim before it) . <br /> As stated in Restatement (Second) of Judgments §83 comment g <br /> (1982) : <br /> The qualifications and exceptions to the rule <br /> of claim preclusion have particular <br /> importance with respect to adjudications by <br /> administrative agencies. one important <br /> qualification has to do with the definition <br /> of 'claim' itself. In the context of civil <br /> actions in courts, the term 'claim' is <br /> broadly defined. . . . This broad definition <br /> reflects the fact that in modern practice <br /> judicial tribunals usually have comprehensive <br /> authority to adjudicate all contentions of <br /> fact and all legal theories that may arise <br /> 5 <br />