Administrative Law

648 Words3 Pages
FACTS In November 2000, Albert Kendall’s fish plant was audited by the Hypoville Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The commission found evidence that Mr. Kendall had a fish catch that was double his license limit. Criminal charges were brought against Mr. Kendall, but were subsequently dropped due to technical deficiencies. The Department wrote advised against him being issued a 2003 fishing license. The Department attached numerous documents to the letter. Mr. Kendall was told that he could make written submissions to the ALJ prior to a decision being made on his 2003 fishing license. Mr. Kendall did not submit any evidence to counter the evidence presented in the letter, but instead Mr. Kendal made arguments about why the license…show more content…
In Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Department of Labor & Employment, 184 Colo. 334 (Colo. 1974), the Court sets forth “The essence of procedural due process is fundamental fairness. This embodies adequate advance notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to state action resulting in deprivation of a significant property interest.” The test set forth in Mathews establishes the requirements for determining if a fishing license should be revoked. When applying this test you see that 1. Mr. Kendall has a vested interest in the fishing license, 2. There is a risk of depriving Mr. Kendall erroneously of his license, and 3. The government has an interest is keeping Mr. Kendall within the perimeters of his license. Additionally, when looking to Mathews, the Court decided that the license holder can only have their license taken away if they are convicted of a criminal offense. Mr. Kendall was not convicted of a criminal offense. It is seen in Woodrow and Mountain States, that in an administrative hearing the defendant must be given adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard. Woodrow also establishes that the “opportunity to be heard” can be accomplished without an actual hearing. Mr. Kendall was informed of the administrative hearing and had the opportunity to submit evidence on his behalf. Mountain States is clear when it states that the defendant must have an opportunity to be heard prior
Open Document