My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV08592
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV08592
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:09:10 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:54:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/22/2005
Doc Name
November 2005 Status Report (E-mail)
From
Jerry Nettleton
To
Janet Binns
Type & Sequence
RN4
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.
/
6
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
DISTRICT COURT, MOFFAT COUNTY, <br />COLORADO <br />22l West Victory Way <br />Craig, Colorado 81625 <br />Plaintiff: <br />BTU EMPIRE CORPORATION, <br />v. <br />Defendants: <br />RAY BARKER and BRAD BARKER <br />and • COURT USE ONLY <br />Applicant for Intervention Case No. 04CV57 <br />GLEN STINSON <br />Attorneys for Applicant for Intervention, Glen <br />Stinson <br />James D. Kilroy, Esq., Atty. Reg. 20872 <br />Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. <br />One Tabor Center, Suite 1900 <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 <br />Telephone: 303.634.2000 <br />Facsimile: 303.634.2020 <br />E-mail: jkilroyn wlaw.com <br />STINSON'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE <br />Applicant for Intervention, Glen Stinson ("Stinson"), through undersigned counsel, Snell <br />& Wilmer LLP hereby submits this Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene, stating as Follows: <br />1. Stinson has moved to intervene in this action pursuant to C.R.C. P, 24(a) and (b) <br />because he has a leasehold interest in the property that is the subject of this dispute, and because <br />he believes that his interests are not, and will not, be adequately protected without his <br />intervention. <br />2. In response to the Motion to Intervene, Defendants have filed an objection, <br />arguing: (1) that Stinson's application for intervention is futile because Stinson's leasehold <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.