Opinion ID: 720568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: what are we dealing with?

Text: 27 Initially, we must establish the character of the 1983 Order which, at least until now, has always been referred to and treated as a consent decree. Although we are not sure why, we understand that, at this very late date and for the first time, the inmates are urging that the sunset clause is unenforceable because it lacks their signatures. Essentially, this is a contractual argument to the effect that without their signatures the sunset clause is unenforceable. 8 We find this newfound identity crisis meritless. The Supreme Court has described a consent decree as an agreement between the parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on [its] precise terms. 9 Moreover, we have noted that [o]nce the district court enters the settlement as a judicial consent decree ending the lawsuit, the settlement takes on the nature of a judgment. 10 Thus, irrespective of whether the inmates signed the document, the facts remain that at the time of negotiation the inmates were represented by counsel, the Department of Justice intervened to assist in protecting the inmates' rights, and the district court entered the 1983 Order. 28 By all indications, the parties intended to settle the case. The document, signed by John T. King, Secretary of the Department of Correction, his attorney, and P. Raymond Lamonica, Executive Counsel for and on behalf of Governor David C. Treen, was labeled Stipulation and Consent Decree. The courts and the parties (at least until recently) treated the 1983 Order as a consent decree, a final judgment in which the district court retained jurisdiction to issue interim orders necessary for relief and supervision until such time and as the terms are complied with by the Department. We are not persuaded that the parties and the courts have misapprehended the nature of the 1983 Order. Accordingly, we hold that the 1983 Order has had the full force and effect of a judicial resolution of a dispute since it was entered by the district court.