Laserfiche WebLink
effectively a consent judgment entered after MLRD had considered the issues and <br />made pertinent findings of fact regarding the Coal Basin episode. Mid - Continent <br />agreed to a penalty assessment and paid it. Because the State has been afforded <br />relief for the discharge from Outfall No. 016, Mid- Continent believes that WQCD's <br />subsequent proceeding was brought by that agency as a stalking horse for EPA. <br />II. <br />THE SETTLEMENT WITH MLRD IS BINDING BECAUSE MLRD <br />ACTED IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY AND RESOLVED DISPUTED <br />ISSUES OF FACT WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AN ADEQUATE <br />OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE <br />The doctrine of res judicata was developed in the context of judicial <br />proceedings, but it may be applied to administrative actions as well. Industrial <br />Comm'n, Colorado v. Moffat County School Dist. Re 1, 732 P.2d 616 'Colo. 1987); <br />Umberfield v. School Dist. No. 11, 185 Colo. 165, 522 P.2d 730 (1974). In the <br />administrative context, the well - established test for res judicata and the doctrine's <br />underlying policy of preventing duplicative litigation are not abandoned. See Moffat <br />County, 732 P.2d at 620 (indicating that the court considered whether the issues in <br />the two proceedings were identical for purposes of collateral estoppel); Umberfield, <br />522 P.2d at 732 (stating that res judicata is based on the necessity for finality in <br />litigation without distinguishing between res judicata in the administrative and <br />judicial contexts). <br />In the administrative context the res judicata test may assume an additional <br />gloss; "[t]he findings and conclusions of an administrative agency may be binding <br />016, during the months of January and February, 1989. The discharge resulted from pond <br />freezing and the MLRD - ordered wintertime pond cleanout. <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 37 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />