Laserfiche WebLink
Because the trial court's finding that defendants were not <br /> lin 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 /> Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 41.6 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.y. Cordillera Corp. , 818 P.2d 72$ (Colo. <br /> 1991) . <br /> Having assumed responsibility for accomplishing reclamation <br /> of the mine site, the Division contends that Resources' <br /> liquidation plan will not 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 /> 5 <br /> 60180'8 9££## S£:ST ZZ-T0`L66T 8S5£ 998 £0£ 93s s=Ano838 idt :i lldN: W08A <br />