Laserfiche WebLink
U <br /> <br /> <br />D. That the plaintiff incurred losses in gross income <br />" at the rate of approximately $10,000.00 per day, including loss <br />of use of equipment and employees. <br />10. The procedures and subsequent findings and order of the <br />MLRB dated May 30, 1985 exceeded its Constitutional and statutory <br />authority, constituted a denial of due process of law, consti- <br />tuted an erroneous interpretation of the law, was entered in an <br />arbitrary and capricious manner, and was unsupported by the <br />evidence, as more fully set forth in paragraphs 10. A-N of the <br />original Complaint, which are realleged herein and herein <br />incorporatd by reference. <br />11. On or about June 26, 1985, the MLRR conducted a formal <br />hearing in connection with the Lawrence Pit, file No. 74-41, for <br />the alleged purpose of the followiny: <br />A. Consideration of a Request Eor Admission as a <br />Party/Brinkmann-Woodward Construction Company. <br />B. Formal public hearing-consideration of civil <br />penalties. <br />C. Transfer of permit and succession of operator to <br />Cooley Gravel Company. <br />12. On that date and at that time, plaintiff here also filed <br />an Application to Postpone Effective Date of Cease and Desist <br />Order Pending Judicial Review, and requested hearing on the same, <br />and Further filed its Objection to Transfer of Permit and Succes- <br />sion of Operator to Cooley Gravel Company. <br />13. On that date and at that time, the MLRB took the follow- <br />ing action and thereafter issued its written orders as follows on <br />July 24, 1985: <br />A. Recognized that the plaintiff, Brinkmann-Woodward, <br />was a party to the matter retroactive to the meeting of May 22, <br />1985 and that Brinkmann-Woodward was a party to this proceeding. <br />B. Resolved and passed a motion to reconsider the <br />MLRB's action taken at the May 22, 1985 MLRB meeting relating to <br />the violation and Cease and Desist Order. The plaintiff here did <br />not object to the reconsideration, but objected to having a <br />reconsideration hearing or new hearing on June 26, 1985, on the <br />grounds of lack of notice, improper procedure, etc. and requested <br />that the hearing on reconsideration or the new hearing take place <br />at the next meetiny, subject to proper notice. Notwithstanding, <br />the MLRB resolved to proceed with the hearing. <br />C. The P7LR8 made certain findings and orders with <br />respect to possible violations, as follows: <br />i. The Board found a violation for Failure to <br />-4- <br />