Laserfiche WebLink
ARGUMENT <br />I. <br />THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY FOUND <br />THAT THE ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA <br />WERE MET IN THIS CASE <br />The district court correctly found that res judicata bars WQCD's subsequent <br />proceeding against Mid - Continent. The State of Colorado, acting through MLRD, had <br />already proceeded against Mid - Continent regarding the same "cause of action," that <br />is, effluent discharge from Outfall No. 016 during the period January 17, 1989 through <br />February 23, 1989. The prior MLRD proceeding culminated in a settlement agreement <br />(MCR Exhibit 134, Record 00643; see also, Brief Appendix, Appendix -6-J) between the <br />State (through MLRD) and Mid - Continent. The settlement was made after the MLRD <br />conference officer made adjudicatory findings of fact regarding the Coal Basin <br />episode.'' Mid - Continent paid the agreed -upon penalty, and the State was thus <br />afforded civil penalty relief for the discharge. <br />The res judicata doctrine is well established in Colorado. In numerous <br />decisions, Colorado courts have applied the doctrine over a broad range of fact patterns <br />and contexts, including criminal, administrative, environmental, and other law. The <br />" Details of the MLRD proceeding and its subject matter are readily ascertainable from <br />the Inspection Report (MCR Exhibit 13 -B, Record 00626- 00629), Brief Appendix, Appendix -6 -B, <br />and the Justification of Settlement Agreement (MCR Exhibit 13 -I, Record 00638 - 00642), Brief <br />Appendix, Appendix -6 -I. <br />Discharge from Outfall No. 016 and the surrounding circumstances may occasionally <br />be referred to as the "Coal Basin episode" in this answer brief. <br />18 For example, res judicata precludes petitioners from bringing successive habeas <br />corpus actions involving essentially the same claims. Blea v. Colorado Bd. of Parole, 779 P.2d <br />1353 (Colo. 1989). In a landlord -tenant dispute, entry of a default judgment on the issue of <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- i7 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />