Laserfiche WebLink
plan had been confirmed and only provided funding for reclamation <br /> up to $3 million (v. 2 , pp. 405-08) . <br /> The district court never directly ruled on the plaintiff' s <br /> motion to amend the complaint . Rather, after oral argument was <br /> held at the motions hearing conducted on March 27, 1995 , the <br /> court from the bench granted summary judgment for the defendants <br /> and dismissed the case against them. One of the court' s findings <br /> was that the State could not bring this action to obtain funds to <br /> complete reclamation of the site because the State was estopped <br /> from asking for more damages than it had originally estimated in <br /> the bond and in the complaint and had asserted in MCR' s bankrupt- <br /> cy proceedings (v. 3 , p. 63) . <br /> On April 14, 1995 , the court issued a written order, reiter- <br /> ating that the State was estopped from increasing its damages on <br /> the basis that the amount that the plaintiff could claim against <br /> the defendants had been fixed by the bankruptcy of MCR (v. 2 , p. <br /> 536) . <br /> The defendants filed a motion to amend the court' s judgment <br /> attaching a proposed order, while the plaintiff filed a motion <br /> for clarification concerning the order (v. 2 , pp. 539-43 , 624- <br /> 26) . In response to these motions , the district court issued an <br /> amended written ruling on June 26 , 1995 (v. 2 , pp. 713-15) . <br /> The court partially denied the defendant' s motion to amend <br /> the judgment on the ground that the additions requested by the <br /> defendants contained disputed issues of fact (v. 2 , p. 714) . The <br /> court clarified that the dismissal of the case was with prejudice <br /> 6 <br />