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
the location and final date for filing objections with the Board. <br /> (See 534-32-113 (10) (b) , C. R. S. 1973. This notice is to be <br /> mailed to the adjacent landowner not more than ten (10) days <br /> after the initial filing of the application with the Board. <br /> §34-32-113 (10) (b) , C. R. S. 1973 . <br /> It has been conceded by the Board and it is undisputed <br /> that Plaintiff is the owner of record of immediately adjacent <br /> lands (pages 27-28 , 33 transcript) , and it is further undisputed <br /> that notice by mail was never sent to the Eagle Trust nor proven <br /> (pages 2, 12 of Defendants.' Memo, and Olive Goldman Affidavit, <br /> paragraphs 4 and 5, and Chester Goldman Affidavit, paragraphs <br /> 17 and 18) . That these material facts are undisputed suffices <br /> as a basis for granting Plaintiffs summary judgment due to <br /> Defendants ' failure to comply with §34-32-113 (10) (c) , C.R. S. 1973 . <br /> Defendants contend that Plaintiffs received some form <br /> of actual notice which satisfied all requirements of constitutional <br /> and statutory law. This alleged "actual notice" was non-existent <br /> and nonetheless inadequate (as has been demonstrated in Plaintiffs ' <br /> initial Brief in detail - )and further the Board is required to <br /> strictly comply with the statutory requirements in any of it' s <br /> proceedings or it' s actions will be held void. Colorado State <br /> Board of Medical Examiners v. Hohu, 129 Colo. 145, 268 P . 2d 401 , <br /> 404 (1954) . Agency orders issued without proper notice to <br /> interested parties are to be considered invalid and set aside. <br /> Henderson vs. Industrial Commission, 35 Colo. App. 124 , 529 P. 2d <br /> 651, 652 (1975) ; Alcott Pharmacy, Inc. vs . State Board of <br /> Pharmacies, 35 Colo. App. , , 531 P. 2d 987 , 989 (1975) . <br /> Defendant has in it' s Reply Brief, distorted the <br /> statements and meanings of the Affidavits attached to Plaintiffs ' <br /> Memorandum Brief. Defendant attempts to create an attorney/client <br /> relationship between Robert J. Stemwedel and the Eagle River Trust; <br /> after having created that relationship Defendant attempts to <br /> -8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.