Laserfiche WebLink
to prevent manifest injustice. Committee for Better Health Care <br /> v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992) . <br /> Moreover, application of the doctrine is not justified <br /> where it interferes with underlying government policies or unduly <br /> undermines the correct enforcement of the particular law or <br /> regulation. Emery Min. Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, supra. <br /> Equitable estoppel may not be used to contradict a clear <br /> legislative mandate. Emery Min. Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, <br /> supra; see Muck v. United States, 3 F. 3d 1378 (loth Cir. 1993) ; <br /> Trapper Min. Inc. v. Lujan, 923 F.2d 774 (loth Cir. 1991) ; <br /> Delohery v. I .R. S . Dept . of Treasury, 843 F.Supp. 666 (D. Colo. <br /> 1994) . <br /> In addition, courts have held that for estoppel to apply to <br /> the government, the claimant must show that the government agency <br /> committed affirmative misconduct . Delohery, supra; Armstrong v. <br /> United States, 516 F.Supp. 1252 (D. Colo. 1981) . Affirmative <br /> misconduct is defined as an affirmative misrepresentation or an <br /> affirmative concealment of a material fact . Armstrong, supra. <br /> The elements required to apply equitable estoppel to the <br /> plaintiff in this case were not established. In addition, the <br /> application of the doctrine undermines the public' s interest and <br /> legislative intent of ensuring that mine sites are fully <br /> reclaimed. The doctrine should therefore not be applied. <br /> 14 <br />