Laserfiche WebLink
from a transaction. Since a judicial <br /> tribunal has such comprehensive authority, a <br /> litigant may justly be required to avail <br /> himself of that authority and to assert in a <br /> single action all factual and legal <br /> contentions that might be made. . <br /> In contrast, the jurisdiction of <br /> administrative agencies is usually defined in <br /> terms of specified substantive legal <br /> provisions, for example, workers ' <br /> compensation . . . . Since the tribunal 's <br /> authority is delimited in substantive legal <br /> terms, the tribunal ordinarily lacks <br /> authority to adjudicate claims arising out of <br /> the transaction in question but based upon <br /> other substantive legal premises. . . . <br /> These limitations on authority of the <br /> tribunal should carry corresponding <br /> limitations on scope of 'claim' for purposes <br /> of the rule of claim preclusion. <br /> Here, the Mined Land Reclamation Division entered into a <br /> settlement agreement with Mid-Continent pursuant to §34-33-123 , <br /> C.R. S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 14) and its powers to enforce the terms <br /> and conditions of its permit. However, this statute does not <br /> grant the Mined Land Reclamation Division authority to enforce <br /> the Water Quality Control Division permit. See §25-8-102 (4) , <br /> C.R. S. (1989 Repl. Vol. 11A) . <br /> Instead, with reference to the agencies charged with <br /> responsibility for water quality control, such as Mined Land <br /> Reclamation Division and the Water Quality Control Division, the <br /> General Assembly provided in §25-8-202 (7) , C.R.S. (1989 Repl. <br /> Vol. 11A) : <br /> Activities subject to the jurisdiction of the <br /> implementing agencies that result in <br /> discharge to state waters shall be regulated <br /> as follows . . . . <br /> 6 <br />