My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46384
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46384
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:19:28 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:36:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
Boards Answer to Boyton et al v. MLRB
From
AGO
To
MLRB & DMG
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.
/
187
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
minutes. Id. at p. 842. "Absent any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the Board's <br />decision ....was impartially rendered and was based solely on the evidence in the record." Id. <br />The Board considered this case with integrity, honesty and impartiality. The fact that the <br />Boazd ruled immediately following the closure of evidence does not demonstrate impermissible <br />bias or a conflict of interest. It demonstrates that, in the judgment of the Board, the weight of the <br />evidence clearly favored Four States. Ms. Boynton offers no evidence of impermissible bias <br />except that she suspects bias because her evidence did not persuade the Board. This suspicion <br />does not rebut the presumption of integrity. <br />VII. Four States' Application Complied With § 34-32.5-115 and 116, <br />C.R.S. <br />Plaintiffs make several azguments that the Board's decision that Four States' application <br />complies with the Reclamation Act is arbitrary and capricious. <br />The Board's findings that Four States satisfied these requirements are findings of fact that <br />must be upheld if they have a reasonable basis in law and aze supported by substantial evidence <br />in the record. "Substantial evidence is probative, credible, and competent evidence that <br />warrants, a reasonable belief in the existence of a fact without regard to contradictory evidence or <br />inference." Colorado State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Ogin, 56 P.3d 1233, 1237 (Colo.App. <br />2002) (citations omitted). <br />Plaintiffs argue that Four States has failed to address the Division's concerns that its <br />intended slope for stockpiles is too steep. Four States is not obligated to accept the Division's <br />recommendation to use 3H:1 V slopes for its stockpile geometry.9 Four States is obligated to <br />9 Plaintiffs confuse slope angles. A 1H:1 V slope is steeper than a 3H:1 V slope. <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.