Laserfiche WebLink
• i <br />of law (at 3. 8). <br />c. Defendants did not establish on which spe- <br />cific dates plaintiffs violated the law (at 4). <br />d. Defendants never in fact inspected plain- <br />tiffs• mine (at 4-5). <br />e. The record lacked evidence of the acreage <br />involved in the violation (at 5). <br />f. The record lacked evidence of the lecaticn <br />of the operation (at 5). <br />g. The board's finding of violation of the <br />Act (i. e., mining without a perrtit) was unsupported by the <br />evidence (at 4-5). <br />h. The board failed to consider imposing the <br />fine under provisions applicable to limited impact operations <br />(at 7). <br />i. The board failed to comply with its guide- <br />lines for assessment of civil penalties (at 8). <br />j. The board failed to specify general, tech- <br />nical. or scientific facts of which it took notice (at 8). <br />k. Plaintiffs were denied cross-examination <br />rights on noticed facts (at 8). <br />These new issues, which in defendants' view were con- <br />clusively refuted by the record, necessitated an unusually <br />length response to demonstrate their groundlessness. <br />("Defendants' Memorandum i?rief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' <br />Motion for Summary Judgment and in Further Support of Cefen- <br />dants' Notion for Summary Judgments" filed December 7, 1982.) <br />9. Plaintiffs' second reply brief ("Reply Brief tc <br />Defendants' Memorandum Srief"), filed with an amended answer <br />to defendants' counterclaim cn cr about December 22. 1982s <br />presented the following new issues: <br />a. Plaintiffs were not notified that the <br />board would consider evidence presented at prior sessions <br />of the hearing, which was continued and reconvened on Septem- <br />ber 23. 1981 (at 4). <br />-3- <br />