My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-11-06_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1992-11-06_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/24/2021 9:11:49 AM
Creation date
4/30/2012 8:58:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
11/6/1992
Doc Name
Civil Action No. 91 CV177
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
MID-CONTINENT RESOURCES, INC. V LOOBY, 91 CV 177 <br /> OCTOBER 22, 1992 <br /> PAGE 8 <br /> Identity of parties is not a mere matter of form, but of <br /> substance . Parties nominally the same may be, in legal <br /> effect, different . . . and parties nominally different may <br /> be, in legal effect , the same . There is privity between <br /> officers of the same government so that a judgment in a <br /> suit between a party and a representative of the United <br /> States is res judicata in relitigation of the same issue <br /> between that party and another officer of the United <br /> States . <br /> This logical analysis of the federal bureaucracy applies with equal <br /> to force to the State of Colorado . The Court therefore concludes <br /> that for purposes of res judicata, the party is the same in both <br /> proceedings . It is the State of Colorado; acting through the MLRD <br /> in the first action and the WQCD in the second action. <br /> The Attorney General , acting for both the WQCD nd MLRD, <br /> argues that the bar of res judicata should be applied with caution <br /> and that public policy disfavors it . The Court does apply it with <br /> caution, and only on the facts adduced in this docket . The more <br /> focused public policy can be found in Salida School Dist . R-32-J v. <br /> Morrison, 732 P . 2d 1160 (Colo. 1987 ) , where the Court explained the <br /> purpose of the doctrine as follows : <br /> The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata <br /> ' relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple <br /> lawsuits , conserve judicial resources , and, by preventing <br /> inconsistent decisions , encourage reliance on <br /> adjudication . ' <br /> In the peculiar facts in this docket , each agency had the benefit <br /> of the samples taken by the other . They were sharing the <br /> investigative function. Each obviously had technical expertise; <br /> the technicalities each placed in their respective permits to MCR <br /> reveal this proficiency . Clearly, each agency knew what the other <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.