Laserfiche WebLink
Tatum house. Indeed, such a finding would provide only cold comfort to Basin. The District <br />Court judgment has been paid, and Basin cannot recoup that cost, no matter what the Board <br />might hold. <br />The Tatums and the Division invoke the principle of collateral estoppel as justification <br />for the exclusion of some parts of the expert reports prepared on behalf of Basin. The Boazd <br />should deny the motion for the following reasons: <br />The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply because the issue before the <br />Board is not identical to the issue decided by the District Court. <br />2. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, when used offensively, does not require the <br />exclusion of the evidence offered by Basin's experts, and the exclusion of such <br />evidence would be contrary to the broad evidentiary rules applicable to Boazd <br />hearings. <br />3. A frank discussion of the mechanics of mine subsidence prior to 1997 is <br />necessary to address issues raised by the expert hired by the Tatums <br />ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE <br />The Issue Before the Board Is Not Identical <br />to the Issue Decided by the District Court <br />The issue before the Board is whether the existence of cracks in the Tatum house arising <br />after 1997 constitute a violation of the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation <br />Board for Coal Mining. Notice of Violation CV-2000-009. The issue before the District Court <br />was whether cracking at the house in existence at the time of the Court's decision in 1997 <br />entitled the Tatums to recover compensatory damages. The inspection report accompanying the <br />Notice of Violation states that "[d]uring the inspection, David Berry and Ann Tatum discussed <br />and agreed that this DMG inspection, and any enforcement actions taken as a result of this DMG <br />inspection, would be specific to any damages at the Tatum residence and property that occurred <br />-3- <br />