Laserfiche WebLink
(b) "shall not be damaged by activities occurring at the mining operation." Vol. I, <br />137. <br />Further, the City has asserted that the MLRB erroneously endorsed a narrow <br />reading of the definition based on an unwritten and undocumented "policy" of <br />considering property that is within existing government rights-of--way, such as <br />State Highway 119, to be outside of the "affected lands." Vol. I, 139. In addition <br />to the two significant issues of law identified above that were not rectified or even <br />sufficiently addressed at the district court level, the district court's cursory review <br />of this elaborate and detailed MLRB action has necessitated this appeal. As <br />evidenced by the Amended Order in this matter, the district court appears to have <br />invested little time in understanding the intricacies of this case and, indeed, even, <br />perhaps in haste, applied an incorrect standard of review. Vol. II, 418-19. In the <br />Amended Order, which, due to its brevity, stands in stark contrast to the daunting <br />record in the case, the district court gives short-shrift to the complexity of the <br />issues on appeal and states, erroneously, that it must review the MLRB's decision <br />merely to see if there is some "rational evidence" in the record supporting it. Vol. <br />II, 418-19. <br />io <br />