My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (171)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (171)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 8:23:22 AM
Creation date
10/19/2012 10:20:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) Court Appeals
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
did not prejudice the defendants. See Denver Center for <br /> Performing Arts v Briggs supra Cf . Manor Vail Condominium <br /> Assn v. Town of Vail, 199 Colo. 62 , 604 P.2d 1168 (1980) <br /> (Estoppel justified where the plaintiff delayed cause of action <br /> for six years and such delay resulted in prejudice to the <br /> defendant) . <br /> b. There was no reasonable reliance by <br /> defendants. <br /> For estoppel to apply, the record must establish that the <br /> claimant reasonably relied on a representation or conduct of the <br /> party against whom estoppel is asserted. This element was not <br /> met in this case . <br /> For the reasons cited above, any reliance by the defendants <br /> on the cost estimate to constitute a final determination of the <br /> reclamation costs was not reasonable or justifiable. As stated <br /> above, the applicable regulations, of which the defendants are <br /> charged with knowledge, contemplated changes to the cost <br /> estimate . The Division' s statements concerning the bond amount <br /> were good faith estimates . There was no representation by the <br /> Division that the ultimate cost of reclamation would remain at $3 <br /> million. Any reliance or belief by the defendants that the cost <br /> estimate was the final tally on reclamation costs was, therefore, <br /> unreasonable. <br /> Moreover, the defendants were on notice months before trial <br /> that the cost would exceed $3 million. Thus, the defendants came <br /> 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.