Laserfiche WebLink
Plaintiff presented testimony from Mr. Lance Wade and Defendant <br />offered the testimony of JoEllen Turner and RoseAnne Guire. Plaintiff's <br />Exhibits A through X were stipulated to and admitted. Mr. Wade testified <br />previously that the monitoring of such plan includes information about the <br />production of hay on the property as well as the use of water and fertilizer and <br />grazing. Plaintiff claims that if it is not permitted to continue to manage the <br />property in accordance with the reclamation plan that it will be irreparably <br />damaged. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserted that the production information <br />will not be available to it in order to provide such information to DRMS in order <br />to apply for a release of a portion of its reclamation bond. Defendant disputes <br />that the Mining Lease gives the Plaintiff the right to exclusive use of the surface <br />of the property and claims that Defendant's rights should be paramount. <br />At the conclusion of the evidence the Court made findings on the record <br />and determined that the Plaintiff had met its burden on all six factors detailed <br />in Rathke v. McFarlane, 648 P. 2d 648 and an injunction should <br />Court's findings are set out in more detail on the record. <br />Generally, the Court found as follows: <br />1. That there was a reasonable probability of success on <br />2 <br />issue. The <br />the <br />merits. <br />When the Mining Lease (Ex. A) is read in conjunction with the various <br />amendments and extensions, including the Assignment of Mining Lease (Ex. F) <br />executed by RoseAnne Guire, taken together with the conduct of the parties to <br />February, 2012, it is clear that there acknowledgement of the existence of the <br />