Laserfiche WebLink
Mining Lease and the use of the property by Plaintiff for reclamation. This is <br />confirmed by Ex. X that included a Seller's disclosure that referenced a lease <br />and reclamation work being performed on the property and further <br />acknowledged that the Seller did not own the hay crop. Therefore the Court <br />found that at a trial on the merits it was likely that the Plaintiff would succeed <br />in its claim to use of the surface of the property to the extent necessary to carry <br />out reclamation operations. <br />2. That there was a danger of a real, immediate and irreparable injury <br />if an injunction was not granted. Mr. Wade testified to the issues that may <br />arise if there was a change in the way that the subject property was managed <br />or if the person who managed the property were changed. Further, the <br />Defendant did not provide evidence as to how it would manage the property to <br />be in compliance with the reclamation plan or their plan for grazing the <br />property to be in compliance. Therefore, the Court found that there was a <br />danger of a real, immediate, irreparable injury to Plaintiff if injunctive relief was <br />not granted. <br />3. There was no plain, speedy remedy at law that would immediately <br />address the harm to the Plaintiff if Defendant was permitted to manage the <br />subject property. <br />4. The granting of the injunction does not disserve the public interest <br />and in fact serves the public interest by allowing the Plaintiff to complete the <br />reclamation, an action which will benefit the Defendant. This is bolstered by <br />3 <br />