Laserfiche WebLink
damages from the defendants in an amount greater than that <br /> contained in an earlier cost estimate done by the Division, thus <br /> barring the Division from pursuing sufficient funds to complete <br /> reclamation. <br /> SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT <br /> The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the <br /> issue of estoppel; the elements of estoppel were not met in this <br /> case, and the application of estoppel here undermines important <br /> governmental policy and should not, therefore, be imposed. <br /> ARGUMENT <br /> The trial court in this case granted summary judgment, <br /> finding, among other things, that the State was estopped from <br /> seeking a larger claim of damages than that originally estimated <br /> by the Division to cover reclamation costs . The trial court' s <br /> ruling effectively prevents the State from acquiring funds to <br /> ensure the completion of the reclamation of the mine site. The <br /> court' s ruling was in error. <br /> Initially, since the estoppel issue was presented in the <br /> context of a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, a brief <br /> summary of the law concerning summary judgment and an analysis of <br /> why the granting of summary judgment here was inappropriate is in <br /> order. This summary will be followed by the law and argument <br /> concerning equitable estoppel . <br /> 8 <br />