Laserfiche WebLink
III . ARGUMENT <br /> A. THE DEFENDANTS ARE AGENTS OF MID-CONTINENT RESOURCES, INC. <br /> AND ARE THEREFORE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECLAMATION. <br /> Section 34-33-123 ( 12) , C.R. S. (1984) provides in relevant <br /> part as follows: <br /> The Board or office may request the attorney general to <br /> institute a civil action for relief, including a <br /> permanent injunction, temporary injunction, restraining <br /> order, or any other appropriate order . . . whenever <br /> [the] permittee or an agent of such permittee violates <br /> or fails or refuses to comply with any order or <br /> decision issued by the board or office. . . . Such court <br /> shall have the jurisdiction to provide such relief as <br /> may be appropriate. . . . Any relief granted by the court <br /> to enforce an order based on a violation or failure or <br /> refusal to comply with any order . . . shall continue in <br /> effect until the completion or final termination of all <br /> proceedings for review of such order under this <br /> article, unless, prior thereto, the district court <br /> granting such relief sets it aside or modifies it. <br /> Case defines the term, "agent" is used in the statute as <br /> any person charged with responsibility for the operation of all <br /> or a part of a coal mine, or the supervision of the miners in a <br /> coal mine . United States v. Peery, 862 F. 2d 567 (6th Cir. 1988) ; <br /> United States v. Dix Fork:__CoaI Co. , 692 F. 2d 436 (6th Cir. <br /> 1982 ) . This definition includes persons charged with the <br /> responsibility of protecting society and the environment from the <br /> adverse effects of the surface coal mining operation and <br /> particularly charged with effectuating compliance with <br /> -5- <br />