My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35100
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35100
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:47 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:29:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/19/2001
Doc Name
PREHEARING BRIEF OF BASIN RESOURCES INC
Violation No.
CV2000009
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.
/
28
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
GFS(MIN) 20(1999) <br />(Cite as: 147 IBLA 323, *326) <br />of mining operations: <br />It is demonstrably insufficient to merely show that the <br />be wrong, i.e., it is possible that any damage *327 which <br />has suffered could be caused by mine subsidence. In order <br />Board, appellant is required to show by a preponderance o <br />decision below was in error, i.e., it is more likely than <br />which has occurred was the result of mine subsidence. <br />The showing required of the appellant in Tennant in order <br />applicable here, and we find that Appellant has failed to <br />respect to Mid State's mine-related blasting. <br />Page 5 <br />decision below might <br />[appellant's] property <br />to prevail before the <br />E the evidence that the <br />not that the damage <br />to prevail is equally <br />make such showing with <br />Appellant requests a hearing. While the Board has authority under 43 C.F.R. 5 <br />4.1286(b) to order a hearing, we will decline to do so where it has not been <br />shown that disposition of the case hinges on the resolution of a material issue <br />of fact. Woods Petroleum Co., 86 IBLA 46, 55 (1985). [FNe] Such is the case <br />here. Therefore, Appellant's request for a hearing is denied. <br />Finally, we reject Appellant's allegation that OSM's Decision was biased in <br />favor of Mid State. He presents no evidence in support of such allegation and we <br />find none. <br />Therefore, we conclude that the Assistant Director's September 29, 1994, <br />Decision affirming the SFO's decision not to take Federal enforcement action was <br />proper. To the extent Appellant has raised other arguments which we have not <br />specifically addressed, they have been considered and rejected. <br />Accordingly, pursuant <br />by the Secretary of the <br />affirmed. <br />John H. Kelly <br />Administrative Judge <br />I concur: <br />Will A. Irwin <br />Administrative Judge <br />FNa) GFS(MIN) 22(1995) <br />FNb) GFS(MIN) 110(1997) <br />FNc) GFS(MIN) 4(1996) <br />FNd) GFS(MIN) 29(1996) <br />to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals <br />Interior, 43 C.F.R. ~ 4.1, the Decision appealed from is <br />FNe) GFS(O&G) 67(1985) <br />GFS(MIN) 20(1999), 147 IBLA 323 <br />END OF DOCUMENT <br />Copr. ~ West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.