My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:28 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 2:35:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/14/2011
Doc Name
Opening Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
Email Name
DB2
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />INTRODUCTION 1 <br />STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 3 <br />STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW 3 <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 6 <br />ARGUMENT 8 <br />I. Standard of Review 8 <br />II. The Board's December 2010 Order Exceeds Its Statutory Authority 9 <br />A. As an Administrative Agency, the Board's Power Is Limited to That <br />Granted by Its Enabling Statute 9 <br />B. The Act Does Not Give the Board Authority to Impose Civil Penalties <br />Based on an Alleged Violation of Its Own Prior Order 10 <br />1. The Act limits the imposition of civil penalties to violations of a <br />permit, not a Board order 10 <br />2. The Board cannot overcome its lack of statutory authority by <br />relying on an inconsistent regulation 11 <br />3. The Division did not allege or prove a violation of Cotter's permit 12 <br />a. The only issue raised by the Division was whether Cotter <br />violated the August 2010 Order 12 <br />b. The record contains no evidence Cotter violated its permit. 13 <br />4. Interpreting the Act to give the Board contempt power to enforce <br />its own order in this case is contrary to law and would raise serious <br />constitutional issues 14 <br />5. Allowing the imposition of civil penalties while Cotter's appeal <br />from the August 2010 Order is pending would raise another serious <br />constitutional concern 16 <br />C. Similarly, the Act Does Not Give the Board Authority to Enter a Cease - <br />and- Desist Order Based on an Alleged Violation of a Prior Board Order 17 <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.