Laserfiche WebLink
doctrine is clearly defined. It applies "when there is in both the prior and subsequent <br />suits identity of subject matter, identity of the cause of action, identity of parties to <br />the action, and identity of capacity in the persons for which or against whom the claim <br />is made." City of Westminster v. Church, 167 Colo. 1, 9, 445 P.2d 52, 55 (1968). A <br />final judgment in the first proceeding is also required. City & County of Denver v. <br />Block 173, 814 P.2d 824, 830 (Colo. 1991). The district court found that all of the <br />above elements were present to bar WQCD's claim against Mid - Continent. <br />A. WQCD's ALLEGATIONS CONSTITUTE THE <br />SAME CLAIM FOR RELIEF AS PREVIOUSLY <br />ASSERTED AND DETERMINED BY MLRD <br />1. THE STATE OF COLORADO, THROUGH MLRD AND <br />WQCD, SOUGHT RELIEF FOR THE SAME ALLEGED <br />INJURY BY BRINGING Two SEPARATE AND <br />SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL PROCEEDINGS <br />Under the doctrine of res judicata, existing judgments are conclusive as to the <br />rights of the participating parties or their privies in any subsequent proceeding based <br />on the "same cause of action." Metropolitan Gas Repair Serv.. Inc. v. Kulik, 621 P.2d <br />313, 319 (Colo. 1981). Colorado has adopted the "same injury" rule defining the same <br />"cause of action" for res judicata purposes. "The `same claim or cause of action' <br />possession is a final order and is res judicata on the issue. Magliocco v. Olson, 762 P.2d 681 <br />(Colo. Ct. App. 1987), cert. denied, Oct. 11, 1988. Where claims based on state law could have <br />been considered and determined in a previous federal court action, res judicata bars <br />relitigation of those claims in state court. Whalen v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 P.2d 251 (Colo. <br />Ct. App. 1993). Res judicata has been applied to an adjudicated eligibility for release from a <br />mental hospital, requiring that a separate hearing later convened in another county be vacated. <br />People ex. rel Farina v. Dist. Court, 21st Judicial Dist., 191 Colo. 225, 553 P.2d 394 (1976). <br />The doctrine is applied in the context of Colorado's water law. See State Eng'r v. Smith <br />Cattle. Inc., 780 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1989); United States v. Bell, 724 P.2d 631 (Colo. 1986); <br />Weibert v. Rothe Bros., Inc., 200 Colo. 310, 618 P.2d 1378 (1980). The doctrine is also applied <br />in the administrative law context. See Umberfield v. School Dist. No. 11, 185 Colo. 165, 522 <br />P.2d 730 (1974). <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 18 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />