Any right, fact, or matter
in issue directly passed upon or necessarily involved in a decision of a deputy, a hearing officer,
the industrial claim appeals office, or the court of appeals which has become a final decision
under this article, after appeal procedures, if initiated, have been completed or otherwise
terminated, shall be conclusive for all the purposes of articles 70 to 82 of this title as between all
interested parties. No finding of fact or law, judgment, conclusion, or final order made with
respect to a determination made under articles 70 to 82 of this title may be conclusive or binding
or used as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding in another forum, except
proceedings under articles 70 to 82 of this title, regardless of whether the prior action was
between the same or related parties or involved the same facts. No findings of fact or law,
judgment, conclusion, or final order made by any other agency, administrative body, or forum
that are not made pursuant to articles 70 to 82 of this title shall be binding on the division for the
purposes of articles 70 to 82 of this title.
Source: L. 76: Entire article R&RE, p. 358, § 1, effective October 1. L. 84: Entire
section amended, p. 318, § 9, effective July 1. L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 493, § 97,
effective July 1. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 404, § 2, effective April 16. L. 92: Entire
section amended, p. 1795, § 5, effective April 10.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-74-111 as it existed prior to 1976.
Notes of Decisions
Salida Sch. Dist. R-32-J v. Morrison, 732 P.2d 1160 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Section 8-74-108, 3B C.R.S. (1986), as amended July 1, 1984, now provides: "[Unemployment compensation d]eterminations made under articles 70 to 82 of this title shall not be binding on the parties under any other statutory or contractual relationship or on any other agency or…”
Indep. Inst. v. Gessler, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Colo. 2013).
· cites it 2× “35 See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-74-108 (determinations made under the Employment Security Act are not binding on any other agency or court); see also Gloston v.”
Nguyen v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 174 P.3d 847 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“See § 8-74-108(1), C.R.8.2007. On March 28, 2007, forty-four days after the statutory deadline, claimant filed an appeal.”
City of Colorado Springs v. Indus. Comm'n, 720 P.2d 601 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Here, the city asserts that it had the requisite jurisdiction because, as a home rule city, it has plenary legislative power over local and municipal matters.”
Action Key Punch Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 709 P.2d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“However, the Commission declined to make findings in this regard because, in its view, § 8-74-108 (4)(k) was dispositive. Since the harassment issue has not been considered, it would be improper for this court to enter any order concerning claimant’s ultimate right to benefits.”
Stern v. Indus. Comm'n, 653 P.2d 742 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 3× “1973 required that every petition for a court of appeals’ review in an unemployment compensation claim matter “shall specify in detail the particular errors and objections.” Also prior to the 1976 revisions, section 8-74-109, C.”
Moffat Cnty. Sch. Dist. Re-No. 1 v. Indus. Comm'n, 717 P.2d 995 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “On the other hand, the school board’s decision concerns only whether one of the statutory criteria for dismissal of a tenured teacher has been shown to exist.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-74-108(1) — 1 case
Nguyen v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 174 P.3d 847 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“See § 8-74-108(1), C.R.8.2007. On March 28, 2007, forty-four days after the statutory deadline, claimant filed an appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.