Laserfiche WebLink
environmental performance standards during the course of a <br /> permittee's mining operation. Id. <br /> The defendants have been actively involved in Resources' <br /> mining operation. They have all represented and/or made <br /> decisions concerning the mining operation and have admitted doing <br /> so in their answer to the complaint. See paragraphs 16 , 19 , 22 , <br /> 24 , 25 , 27 , and 28 of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's <br /> complaint. They are agents of Resources. As such, the <br /> defendants are liable for the costs of reclamation of the mine <br /> Site . Id <br /> Section 34-33-123 , C. R. S. ( 1984 ) , grants this court broad <br /> discretion to determine appropriate relief in this case. See <br /> United States v. Dix Fork Coal Co. , supra . It is in this light <br /> that the plaintiff responds specifically to the defendants' <br /> request for summary judgment . <br /> Summary judgment is a drastic measure and is never warranted <br /> except on a clear showing that the pleadings, affidavits, <br /> and 0bl i sh that there exists no <br /> yenu i ne issue as to an}' ^..+ter 11 A 1 f -ict . Civil Service Com'n v. <br /> Pinder, 812 1-1. 2d 645 (Colo. V,`, 1 ) . In determining whether <br /> summary judgment is proper , the nonmoving party is entitled to <br /> the benefit of all favor.iLlo Inferences that may reasonably be <br /> drawn from the undisputed facts, and all doubts must be resolved <br /> against the moving part} . C�I,eho_lt v. Cowan, 829 P. 2d 352 (Colo. <br /> 1992 ) ; Morlan v. Durland Trust--co . , 127 Colo. 5 , 252 P. 2d 98 <br /> -6- <br />