My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL43165
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL43165
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:11:57 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 12:14:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/8/2006
Doc Name
Citizens Compliant Response
From
Ann Tatum
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
33
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
are unpredictable and occur at lengthy and unforeseeable intervals <br />of time. <br />These conclusions are particularly appropriate here in light of <br />the extensive evidence produced at trial establishing that the First <br />North mine shaft of the Golden Eagle Mine was especially prone to <br />dilapidation and degradation due to poor structural conditions. A <br />former government official who inspected the Golden Eagle Mine <br />while it was operational and a former mine supervisor testified that <br />the First North portion of the mine suffered from substantial and <br />extraordinary problems -- including excessive retention of water <br />and a poor mining floor surface -- that created an extremely fragile <br />and "soupy" platform on which to undertake mining operations. <br />Given these findings, and consistent with the trial court's <br />conclusions, we conclude the court properly allowed recovery here <br />for the damage to homeowners' residence that occurred subseq (ent <br />to December 1997. <br />We also conclude that recovery is not barred by the doctrine of <br />res judicata. Res judicata precludes a claim that was or could have <br />been raised in a previous litigation. City & County of Denver v. <br />a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.