context: The majority correctly states that a losing plaintiff cannot avoid or obstruct the preclusive effect of an administrative decision by failing to raise issues or defenses at either the administrative hearing or on appeal to the state court.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: determining that Utah Construction's fairness standards were met "at all levels of the administrative process"
citation_a.sentence: See Miller, 39 F.3d at 1038 (stating that preclusive effect may be given to an administrative decision where “the agency adjudication meets the requirements of due process, and de novo judicial review is available”) (emphasis added); see also Misischia, 60 F.3d 626 (determining that Utah Construction’s fairness standards were met “at all levels of the administrative process”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 39 F.3d 1038, 1038
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that preclusive effect may be given to an administrative decision where "the agency adjudication meets the requirements of due process, and de novo judicial review is available"
citation_b.sentence: See Miller, 39 F.3d at 1038 (stating that preclusive effect may be given to an administrative decision where “the agency adjudication meets the requirements of due process, and de novo judicial review is available”) (emphasis added); see also Misischia, 60 F.3d 626 (determining that Utah Construction’s fairness standards were met “at all levels of the administrative process”).