My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE114773
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE114773
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:10:53 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 12:03:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/8/2005
Doc Name
City of Black Hawks Response to CCDWPs Motion to Deny Party Status & Strike Objections Witnesses
From
City of Black Hawk
To
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.
/
14
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
Motion for Conditions that the City previously filed with the Board, which it incorporates herein by <br />reference, the City has proposed a condition related to blasting that it would find acceptable. See <br />proposed condition #5, City's Motion for Conditions, dated November 17, 2005. <br />III. Response to Applicant's Notice of Intent to Move to Strike Certain <br />Proposed Exhibits and Experts <br />The Applicant's notice of its intent to request that certain exhibits be stricken from the record <br />and of its intent to,object to the testimony offered by several of the City's expert witnesses <br />accomplishes nothing at this time. However, it does provide the City with an opportunity to <br />demonstrate to the Boazd the relevance of the contested exhibits and to prove to the Board the <br />expertise of its expert witnesses. At the upcoming hearing the City will do both and will meet and <br />exceed the standazds set for both the relevancy of exhibits and the qualification of experts. <br />Construction Material Rule 2.8.1(2) incorporates language contained in C.R.S. § 24-4-105(7) <br />of the Administrative Procedures Act and states as follows: <br />The rules of evidence of requirements of proof shall conform to the <br />extent practicable, [sic] with those in civil non-injury cases in district <br />courts. However, when necessary to do so in order to ascertain facts <br />affecting the substantial rights of the parties to the proceeding, the <br />Board may receive and consider evidence not admissible under such <br />rules, if such evidence possesses probative value commonly accepted <br />by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. <br />Section 2.8.1(2) (emphasis added). <br />The rules applicable to the admission of evidence in civil actions in district courts referred to <br />by C.M.R. 2.8.1(2) include C.R.E. 401, which defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any <br />tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action <br />more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Yet, C.R.S. § 24-4-105(7) <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.