My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1979-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1978352
>
1979-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2022 2:33:39 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:39:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978352
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/2/1979
Doc Name
PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 79-CV-1633
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to embark on <br /> discovery to determine the corporate structure of Nottingham <br /> Sand & Gravel Company, and the relationship of William E. <br /> Nottingham, Jr. to said corporation. As a consequence, it <br /> is inappropriate to conclude that the corporate veil of <br /> Nottingham Sand & Gravel Company does not warrant being pierced <br /> to hold William E. Nottingham, Jr. individually responsible for <br /> the corporate acts of Nottingham Sand & Gravel Company. <br /> Further, there exists at this time evidence that Mr. <br /> Nottingham made statements in a personal capacity which directly <br /> jeopardized the rights of the Plaintiff Trust to notice and the <br /> proper protection of its property interest. Specifically, para- <br /> graphs 14 and 16 of Chester M. Goldman' s Affidavit indicate that <br /> Mr. Nottingham personally held out that "he would leave ponds <br /> and attractive grounds behind" after completing his operations <br /> at the Eagle Pit. Mr. Nottingham also told Chester Goldman <br /> with regard to a "retraction for legal notice" that "he didn ' t <br /> know anything about any notices" . (Chester Goldman Affidavit, <br /> paragraph 16) . <br /> In light of these facts, clearly an independent cause <br /> of action is properly alleged against Mr. Nottingham, and the <br /> failure to join Mr. Nottingham would not permit a complete and <br /> just adjudication of the rights of the parties nor permit complete <br /> relief to be accorded Plaintiff. <br /> II . PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW <br /> PURSUANT TO C. R. S . 24-4-106 , AND PLAINTIFF <br /> HAS NONETHELESS EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE <br /> REMEDIES , AND IS A PARTY ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL <br /> REVIEW. <br /> Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff estopped from <br /> seeking judicial review on the basis of the fact that <br /> Plaintiff never requested an adjudicatory "hearing" under Section <br /> 24-4-105, C. R. S 1973 (State Administrative Procedure Act) . <br /> -2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.