agency rule in Colorado

1992In Di Cosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159 , 450 A.2d 508, 515 (1982), the New Jersey Supreme Court offered the following distinction between the tort of negligent hiring and the agency doctrine of vicarious liability based on the rule of respon-deat superior: Thus, the tort of negligent hiring addresses the risk created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual, while the doctrine of respondeat superior is based on the theory that the employee is the agent or is acting for the employer.

1992In Di Cosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159 , 450 A.2d 508, 515 (1982), the New Jersey Supreme Court offered the following distinction between the tort of negligent hiring and the agency doctrine of vicarious liability based on the rule of respon-deat superior: Thus, the tort of negligent hiring addresses the risk created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual, while the doctrine of respondeat superior is based on the theory that the employee is the agent or is acting for the employer.

1988Chastain, 733 P.2d at 1214 ; see United States v. West, 453 F.2d 1351 (3d Cir.1972).

1987See United States v. West, 453 F.2d 1351, 1356 (3d Cir.1972).

2013In Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Colorado, Inc. v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue; 919 P.2d 894, 897 (Colo.App.1996), a division of this court cited, with approval, the well-known Chevron standard for judicial review of agency actions.

1998Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., supra; Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Colorado, Inc. v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 919 P.2d 894 (Colo.App.1996).

2026Rein v. Meagher , 2020 CO 56 , ¶ 44 , 465 P.3d 554, 563 ( concluding that an injunction was sufficiently specific when the defendant was required to cease violating an agency rule ) .

2026Rein v. Meagher , 2020 CO 56 , ¶ 44 , 465 P.3d 554, 563 ( concluding that an injunction was sufficiently specific when the defendant was required to cease violating an agency rule ) .

2022Grp., Inc., 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800, 806 (Ct. App. 2009) (upholding arbitrator’s sanctions award against party’s attorney because, in part, the attorney was the party’s agent), and Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Docutel Corp., 371 F. Supp. 240, 246 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) (upholding arbitrator’s sanctions award against nonparty principal of agent-signatory to an arbitration agreement), with Rugby Union, ¶ 36 (“The agency exception to the general principle that a party cannot be required to arbitrate any dispute that it has not agreed to arbitrate is premised on traditional principles of agency law.

2022Grp., Inc., 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800, 806 (Ct. App. 2009) (upholding arbitrator’s sanctions award against party’s attorney because, in part, the attorney was the party’s agent), and Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Docutel Corp., 371 F. Supp. 240, 246 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) (upholding arbitrator’s sanctions award against nonparty principal of agent-signatory to an arbitration agreement), with Rugby Union, ¶ 36 (“The agency exception to the general principle that a party cannot be required to arbitrate any dispute that it has not agreed to arbitrate is premised on traditional principles of agency law.

2018Bd. of Comm’rs v. HealthSouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948, 951 (Colo. 2011). ¶ 26 This case involves interpretation of an agency rule.

2014Cf. Sanger v. Dennis, 148 P.3d 404, 408, 416 (Colo.App.2006) (agreeing with the district court's determination that an agency rule, which added an annual written consent requirement to the definition of "member," conflicted with article XXVIII because the consent requirement created a new condition not found in article XXVIII).

2014Comm'rs v. Colo. Oil and Gas Conservation Comm'n, 81 P.3d 1119, 1125 (Colo.App.2003) (invalidating an agency rule amendment that replaced the words "operationally conflicting" with "any conflicting" because on its face the broader amended rule preempted local government actions and therefore conflicted with case law).

2013Any rule or amendment to an existing rule issued by any agency ... which conflicts with a statute shall be void. § 24-4-103(8)(a), C.R.S8.2018. ¶ 18 Second, a reviewing court may invalidate an agency rule if the rule is:. arbitrary or capricious, a denial of statutory right, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, or limitations, not in accord with the procedures or procedural limitations of this article or as otherwise required by law, an abuse or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, based upon findings

2013Utils Comm'n, 720 P.2d 552, 562 (Colo.1986) (finding an agency rule-making action void for failure to comply with proper procedures).

2009Brighton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Colo. State Pharmacy Bd., 160 P.3d 412, 420 (Colo.App.2007).

2009Brighton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Colo. State Pharmacy Bd., 160 P.3d 412, 420 (Colo.App.2007).

2006See Int'l Paper Co. v. Cohen, 126 P.3d 222, 226 (Colo.App.2005)(discussing principles of interpretation of city ordinance); Halverstadt v. Dep't of Corr., 911 P.2d 654, 657 (Colo.App.1995)(applying principles of statutory interpretation to agency rule).

2006See Int'l Paper Co. v. Cohen, 126 P.3d 222, 226 (Colo.App.2005)(discussing principles of interpretation of city ordinance); Halverstadt v. Dep't of Corr., 911 P.2d 654, 657 (Colo.App.1995)(applying principles of statutory interpretation to agency rule).

1999See Wilder v. Prokop, 846 F.2d 613 (10th Cir.1988) (upon a finding that an administrative agency has improperly declined jurisdiction, the reviewing court should, in the absence of special circumstances, remand the case to the agency for a hearing on the merits).

1998In People v. Lowrie, 761 P.2d 778, 782-84 (Colo.1988), we explicitly discussed the requirement of notice when the General Assembly enacts a statute delegating rulemaking authority to an administrative agency and providing that the violation of an agency rule constitutes criminal conduct.

1998In People v. Lowrie, 761 P.2d 778, 782-84 (Colo.1988), we explicitly discussed the requirement of notice when the General Assembly enacts a statute delegating rulemaking authority to an administrative agency and providing that the violation of an agency rule constitutes criminal conduct.