My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-05-10_REVISION - C1981013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981013
>
2007-05-10_REVISION - C1981013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:52 PM
Creation date
8/7/2009 3:54:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/10/2007
Doc Name
DRMS Brief in Support of NOV CV2007001, Civil Penalty & Proposed Decision on SI
Type & Sequence
SI1
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.
/
100
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
i <br />brought in court for4amages caused by subsidence from Basin Resources' <br />mining operation. (This case will be discussed below). <br />The parties waived claims "in any way related to or arising from the <br />Litigation." The settlement agreement states that the waivers were intended <br />to resolve the NOV !and all matters and proceedings arising directly from the <br />NOV. The waivers idid not include claims in regard to the case of Tatum v. <br />Basin Resources (01 CV 26) for subsidence damage, any collateral <br />proceedings related to such lawsuit, claims related to mining activities <br />unrelated to the Litigation or any claims regarding matters excluded from the <br />waivers. <br />Pursuant to the agreement, Basin Resources paid $30,000 to the Tatums to <br />satisfy the award of costs and expenses in 01 CV 038. Basin also dismissed <br />its appeals in 02 CA; 1915 (appeal of 01 CV 038) and 03 CA 0039 (appeal of <br />costs award). The Board and Division dismissed their cross appeal in 02 CA <br />1915. <br />I <br />Thus, the settlement agreement resolved remaining litigation matters <br />concerning the temporary relief order that was made into a final judgment <br />and the Tatums' cost award, but did not preclude the Division from pursuing <br />enforcement actions !in the future including the current NOV. Prior to the <br />time of the settlement agreement, the Board had reconsidered its April 10, <br />2001, order reinstating the NOV and had issued its June 11, 2001, order <br />upholding the Division's authority to vacate the NOV without prejudice; the <br />trial court had granted the Tatums' motion to dismiss Basin Resources' <br />complaint for judicial review of the Board's June 11 order based on the <br />company's lack of standing, among other reasons; and Basin Resources <br />voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the trial court's dismissal of its judicial <br />review case. <br />Thus, prior to the time of the settlement agreement, the issue of the <br />Division's authority to vacate the NOV without prejudice was finally <br />decided. The issue was already resolved by the court in favor of the Division <br />and Board. The settlement agreement did not affect this final ruling. <br />Rather, it merely resolved remaining appeals by Basin Resources and the <br />State concerning the temporary relief order that was made final and the <br />court's award of costs against Basin Resources. This is why the Division's <br />March 2001 vacation of the NOV without prejudice and the Board's June <br />11, 2001, order upholding the Division's authority to vacate without <br />I <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.