1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 10/28/1993
• Doc Name: Case No. 93 CA 297 Plaintiff-Appellees Anser Brief
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1. The State of Colorado, Through MLRD
and WQCD, Sought Relief for the Same
Alleged Injury by Bringing Two Separate
and Substantially Identical Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. The Fact that the Two Administrative
Proceedings Were Brought Pursuant to
Different Legislative Acts Does Not
Prevent the Application of Res Judicata to
WQCD's Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Legislative Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Permits Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B. Identity of Parties and Capacity Exists Between
MLRD and WQCD, Who Are in Privity One With
the Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C. Mid-Continent's Settlement with MLRD Was a
Final Judgment on the Merits for Purposes of Res
Judicata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
II. The Settlement With MLRD Is Binding Because MLRD
Acted in a Judicial Capacity and Resolved Disputed Issues
of Fact Which the Parties Had an Adequate Opportunity to
Litigate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
III. The Policies Underlying the Doctrine of Res Judicata Are
Precisely Met in this Case Where WQCD Seeks to Penalize
Mid-Continent a Second Time for the Identical Injury
Considered in MLRD's Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
IV. The District Court's Application of Res Judicata Does Not
Constitute Improper Judicial Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Brief Exhibit-1
Mid-Continent Answer Brief - ii - Appeal No. 93 CA 297