My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (178)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (178)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 8:40:38 AM
Creation date
10/19/2012 10:19:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) Court Appeals
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
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
Joel W. Cantrick <br /> Page 11 <br /> Therefore, the Plaintiff requests that the defendant provide this <br /> information. <br /> V. Requests for Admission - Minerals <br /> Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 4: The defendant objects to these <br /> requests as being vague, overly broad, and not reasonably <br /> calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The <br /> Plaintiff disagrees and asks that the defendant admit or deny the <br /> requests. <br /> Request No. 3 : To clarify, this request should read "Admit <br /> that Minerals was a co-obligor with Resources for the loan <br /> obtained by Resources from Continental Illinois National Bank and <br /> Trust Company. " The Plaintiff requests that the defendant admit <br /> or deny the request as amended. <br /> Request Nos. 7 and 8 : The Plaintiff disagrees with the <br /> defendant's objections to these requests, and asks the defendant <br /> to admit or deny the same. The requests are directly relevant to <br /> the issues in this case. <br /> Request No. 9: This request directly relates to the issues <br /> pending in this case, particularly the relationship between <br /> Resources and Minerals. The request is reasonably calculated to <br /> lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff <br /> again requests that the defendant admit or deny the same. <br /> Request No. 10: The defendant asserts that this request is <br /> vague and nonsensical. In an effort to resolve this matter, the <br /> Plaintiff is requesting the defendant to admit or deny whether <br /> Resources, when it became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Minerals, <br /> assumed liabilities it did not have prior to becoming a <br /> subsidiary of Minerals. <br /> Requests Nos. 11. 12 13, 14, 16, and 17: Contrary to the <br /> defendant's objection, these requests directly relate to the <br /> issues in this case, particularly Minerals' relationship with <br /> Resources. The Plaintiff again requests that the defendant admit <br /> or deny the requests. <br /> Request No. 18 : This request is relevant to the issues in <br /> this case, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery <br /> of admissible evidence. The Plaintiff realizes that the mine was <br /> never sold but is requesting the defendant to admit or deny <br /> whether Minerals was involved in the decision to attempt to sell <br /> Resources' mine site. <br /> Requests Nos. 19 and 20: The relationship between Resources <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.