My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-11-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-11-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/31/2021 7:31:28 AM
Creation date
4/30/2012 8:58:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
11/30/1993
Doc Name
Case No. 93CAO297 Reply Brief
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.
/
24
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
those over which the first agency to hear the case has juris- <br /> diction. **4 <br /> The purpose of the doctrine is to force a party to litigate <br /> all of its claims and legal theories in the same forum. See St . <br /> Louis Baptist Temple v. FDIC, 605 F. 2d 1169 ( loth Cir . 1979 ) . It <br /> is not to force parties to choose among legitimate claims and <br /> legal theories and forego others. Given the fact that adminis- <br /> trative agencies have limited jurisdiction, the effect of the <br /> doctrine ' s application advocated by MCR would be to bar parties <br /> from ever raising legitimate claims. It is precisely to prevent <br /> this result that the "opportunity to litigate" requirement has <br /> been imposed by the courts in the administrative context . <br /> The violations charged in the DMG' s NOV and the violations <br /> charged in the WQCD' s NOV could not have been litigated in the <br /> same proceeding. A fact undisputed by MCR. Therefore, the Dis- <br /> trict Court erred in applying the doctrine to void the outcome of <br /> the litigation of the WQCD' s NOV. <br /> 4** In a recent decision, this Court reaffirmed this principle, <br /> stating that "the doctrine does not apply if the plaintiff was <br /> unable to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first <br /> action because of certain legal restrains. " Luis Hernandez v. <br /> Anna Woodard, 17 Brief Times Reporter 1717 , 1778 (Colo. App. <br /> 1993 ) . <br /> -10- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.