Laserfiche WebLink
(v. 2 , p. 714) . The court also adopted its original written <br /> ruling and provided additional findings and conclusions on -the <br /> issue of estoppel (v. 2, pp. 713-16) . Specifically, the court <br /> found that the Division had estimated the cost of reclamation to <br /> be $3 million, which was the amount asserted in MCR' s bankruptcy <br /> case and the amount originally claimed in the complaint (v.- 2 , <br /> pp. 713-15) . The court further found that by its previous <br /> conduct to the defendants, the State had represented that it <br /> would only seek $3 million from the defendants; that the defen- <br /> dants had relied- on such representation by ordering their affairs <br /> with a view toward $3 million to their detriment; that the <br /> defendants had expended additional funds for attorney' s fees in <br /> disputing a larger amount now sought by the State; and that <br /> therefore the State was estopped from asserting a claim against <br /> the defendants for more than $3 million (v. 2 , pp. 713-15) . <br /> The district court specifically noted, however, that it was <br /> not foreclosing the State from bringing a future action against <br /> the defendants should the defendants violate any valid adminis- <br /> trative order (v. 2 , p. 715) . However, the trial court' s ruling <br /> would appear to limit any future monetary request to $3 million. <br /> It is from the court ' s ruling concerning estoppel that the <br /> plaintiff now appeals . <br /> STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE <br /> Whether the trial court, in the context of summary judgment, <br /> correctly ruled that the State was estopped from requesting <br /> 7 <br />