Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rags Over Arkansas River, Inc. v. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Board

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Third Division

March 26, 2015

Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc., a Colorado not-for-profit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Board, f/k/a Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, f/k/a Colorado Division Parks and Outdoor Recreation; and Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Defendants-Appellees, and Over the River Corporation, a Colorado corporation, Intervenor-Appellee

Decided February 12, 2015.

Page 187

City and County of Denver District Court No. 11CV5226. Honorable Robert L. McGahey, Jr., Judge.

Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Richard Kirk Mueller, Constance L. Rogers, Geoffrey C. Klingsporn, Mave A. Gasaway, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Tim Monahan, First Assistant Attorney General, Elaine J. Wizzard, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees.

Kaplan Kirsh & Rockwell LLP, John E. Putnam, Lori Potter, Denver, Colorado, for Intervenor-Appellee.

Opinion by JUDGE DUNN. Hawthorne, J., concurs. Dailey, J., specially concurs.

OPINION

DUNN, J.

Opinion Modified and Petition for Rehearing DENIED

OPINION is modified as follows:

The following footnote (11) is added to page 34, line 9:

Nor does the administrative record contain any express findings by the Board that the Project would have a " significant adverse impact on park values, pose significant threats to the health, safety or welfare of park visitors or other person[s], [or] be inconsistent with area management plans." 2 Code Colo.Regs. 405-7:703(3).

Page 34, lines 18 to 20 currently reads:

ROAR argues instead that, had the special activities regulation been strictly followed, the regional or park manager would have made the final approval decision, not the Board.

Opinion now reads:

Had the special activities regulation been strictly followed, the regional or park manager would have made the final ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.