Laserfiche WebLink
seeks justification to regulate Colorado mining. <br />III. <br />THE POLICIES UNDERLYING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA <br />ARE PRECISELY MET IN THIS CASE <br />WHERE WQCD SEEKS TO PENALIZE <br />MID- CONTINENT A SECOND TIME FOR THE IDENTICAL <br />INJURY CONSIDERED IN MLRD's PROCEEDING <br />When the elements of res judicata have been met, the doctrine functions to <br />bar relitigation of issues actually decided as well as issues that might have been <br />decided. City & County of Denver v. Block 173, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991); Rael v. <br />Taylor, 832 P.2d 1011 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991); Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 350, <br />517 P.2d 396 (1973). By mandating the consolidation of all claims, res judicata <br />ensures that parties are put to the expense and hardship of defending their actions <br />under a defined set of facts only once. See Salida School Dist. R -32-J v. Morrison, 732 <br />P.2d 1160 (Colo. 1987). "This long established doctrine is based upon the policy of <br />preventing endless or repetitive litigation by effectively coercing the plaintiff to <br />present all his grounds for recovery in the first proceeding." St. Louis Baptist Temple <br />v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1174 (10th Cir. 1979). <br />Applying res judicata to bar WQCD's subsequent proceeding against Mid - <br />Continent precisely serves the doctrine's underlying policies. Mid - Continent unjustly <br />has been forced to defend a subsequent suit brought by the State on the same <br />underlying cause of action decided in MLRD's proceeding. As stated by the district <br />court, District Court Decision 8 -9: <br />In the peculiar facts in this docket, each agency had the benefit of the <br />samples taken by the other. They were sharing the investigative function. <br />Each obviously had technical expertise; the technicalities each placed in <br />their respective permits to MCR reveal this proficiency. Clearly. each <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 41 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />