Laserfiche WebLink
Because the trial court' s finding that defendants were not <br /> in violation of any orders fully justified the dismissal of the <br /> action, and because the Division does not challenge the <br /> correctness of that finding, any ruling we might make would not <br /> affect the outcome of this action. The matter is therefore moot. <br /> B. <br /> The Division contends, in effect, that this matter falls <br /> within an exception to the mootness doctrine permitting us to <br /> reach the merits of the claim. We disagree. <br /> Where a. continuing controversy between the parties results <br /> from an "immediate and definite governmental action or policy" <br /> that affects a party's present interest, a court is empowered to <br /> consider the merits of an appeal despite its mootness. Super <br /> r- <br /> Tire Engineering Co v McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 125-26, 94 S.Ct. <br /> 1694, 1700, 40 L.Ed.2d 1, 10 (1974) ; see also Perry Park Water & <br /> Sanitation District ,v. Cordillera Corp. , 818 P.2d 728 (Colo. <br /> 1991) . <br /> Having assumed responsibility for accomplishing reclamation <br /> of the mine site, the Division contends that Resources ' <br /> MMMWMMMliquidation plan will not�� p generate sufficient funds to pay for <br /> the full cost of the reclamation and that the trial court's <br /> ruling would preclude the Division from exercising its regulatory <br /> authority to seek recovery of that full amount as permitted by <br /> Department of Natural Resources Rule 3 .04 .2 (6) , 2 Code Colo. Reg. <br /> 407-2. We conclude that this concern is not well-founded. <br /> low qw, lop <br /> 5 <br />