My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:52:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/22/2013
Doc Name
Answer Brief of Western Fuels Colorado 2010 CV548
From
Christopher Kamper, Stewart McNab Carver, Schwarz Mc Nab & Baily, LLC
To
District Court, Montrose County Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
determination is limited to the record before the agency." Anderson v. Department <br />of Personnel, 756 P.2d 969, 978 (Colo. 1988). New evidence offered in an appeal <br />that had not been presented to the agency below should not be considered. Harris <br />v. District Court, 655 P.2d 398, 401 (Colo. 1982) (Trial court erred in admitting <br />complaints, statements and actions which occurred after the Board's decision being <br />appealed); Stream v. Heckers, 519 P.2d 336, 337 (Colo. 1974). <br />A. Post - Decision Evidence May Not Be Considered. <br />Despite quoting that portion of C.R.S. § 34- 33- 128(2) limiting review to the <br />record before the agency, the plaintiffs base an essential part of their arguments on <br />material that did not exist at the time PR -6 was approved. Specifically in their <br />statement of the record facts, plaintiffs reference a review of MLRB's PR -6 <br />decision issued by the federal Office of Surface Mining ( "OSM ") months after the <br />Board's decision to approve PR -6. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Opening Brief at pp. 6, 9 <br />and 24, and statements in ¶¶ 8, 15, 19 and 20. In those references, plaintiffs direct <br />the Court to documents prepared by OSM on July 15, 2011 (R. 8941 -70, referred <br />to in "Record Facts" ¶¶ 8 and 19; R. 8914 -8940, referred to in "Record Facts" ¶ <br />19) and on August 1, 2011 (R. 8912 -13, referred to in "Record Facts" ¶20). <br />Plaintiffs then rely on the after - the -fact OSM documents to argue that the Board <br />was arbitrary in relying on technical information regarding the use of Bench 1 <br />{00145923 2 ; 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.