Laserfiche WebLink
trict Court ' s decision and attempts to reconcile them. MCR' s at- <br /> tempt fails, however , to justify the doctrine ' s application to <br /> this case in light of all the pertinent case and statutory law <br /> and in light of the pertinent policy considerations applicable to <br /> the case. <br /> REPLY ARGUMENT <br /> I . <br /> MCR' S ARGUMENT FAILS TO RECONCILE THE DIS- <br /> TRICT COURT' S DECISION IN LIGHT OF COLORADO <br /> CASE LAW WHICH IMPOSES ADDITIONAL RESTRIC- <br /> TIONS ON THE DOCTRINE' S APPLICATION TO THE <br /> DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. <br /> Given the appropriate circumstances, the doctrine ' s appli- <br /> cability to bar relitigation of claims adjudicated by an adminis- <br /> trative agency is undisputable. Absent the appropriate circum- <br /> stances, however , the doctrine becomes a tool to foreclose par- <br /> ties from asserting legitimate claims. Acknowledging the differ- <br /> ences between administrative agencies and courts, both the Colo- <br /> rado Supreme Court and this Court have imposed, in addition to <br /> the conditions necessary to establish the doctrine ' s application <br /> in the judicial context, specific conditions which must be pres- <br /> ent for the doctrine to apply to the decisions of administrative <br /> agencies. Accordingly, the doctrine may be applied based on an <br /> administrative agency' s decision only if the agency ( 1 ) acted in <br /> -5- <br />