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
C. There was no detrimental change in <br /> position by defendants. <br /> Furthermore, the requirement that the defendants change <br /> their position to their detriment based upon reasonable reliance <br /> on a representation by the Division is missing from this case . <br /> The trial court' s findings on this element are not supported by <br /> any evidence in the record. Nothing here establishes, as the <br /> court found, that the defendants relied to their detriment on the <br /> representations of the Division by ordering their affairs with a <br /> view toward $3 million. <br /> Again, no evidentiary hearing was held in this case. The <br /> trial court simply granted summary judgment from the bench at the <br /> motions hearing, then later issued a written order with these <br /> findings of fact . The record simply does not support the court' s <br /> findings . See Morrison v. City of Aurora, 745 P.2d 1043 (Colo. <br /> App. 1987) (application of estoppel not justified where record <br /> does not contain evidence establishing element of detrimental <br /> reliance) . <br /> Moreover, the application of equitable estoppel here to <br /> prevent the Division from seeking adequate damages to cover <br /> reclamation costs was not justified because the defendants did <br /> not lose any right to challenge the Division' s most current cost <br /> estimate . See Delohery, supra (estoppel not justified where <br /> claimant lost no legal right , or suffered any adverse change in <br /> position) . The Division' s motion to amend the complaint was <br /> filed prior to the motions hearing, while discovery was on-going, <br /> 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.