My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL40385
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL40385
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:59:35 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:37:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980149
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/20/1983
From
WELD CNTY COLORAD
To
DNR
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.
/
9
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
soa <br />e ~ ~ !UII ?, ~ 19~ <br />almost sure of that. MINFD LAND RECLAMATION <br />1 Colo. Dept. et P<aturat f~es0!~rce~ <br />2 MR. MORRISON: That's all. I apologize to the Court <br />3 for the facts I presented in evidence. I was in error. <br />4 THE COURT: All right.. Mr. Hanson, do you have any <br />g questions? <br />6 MR. HANSON: No questions. <br />~ THE COURT: Thank you very much, sir. You may step <br />g down. <br />y You may call your next witness. <br />l0 MR. MORRISON: I have no other witnesses. <br />11 THE COURT: Do you have any rebuttal testimony to <br />12 present? <br />13 MR. HANSON: No rebuttal. <br />14 (Closing arguments were reported, but not herein <br />15 transcribed, pursuant to the designation of record) <br />--~ 16 THE COURT: I think the decision I give will not be <br />17 very satisfactory to either side, and I will try to make some <br />18 fairly complete findings here, but in the event anybody wants me <br />19 to make a specific finding on any particular point, I will be <br />~ glad to do so at the conclusion of my general remarks. <br />~ 20 <br />21 As to the notice question, it appears to the Court tha <br />22 the notice itself probably substantially complies with the <br />23 requirement of the statute. However, in the event that it doesn' , <br />24 it appears to be that strict compliance was waived by the actions <br />25 of the county. It's the Court's finding that a county employee <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.