Drydock Coal Co., Inc. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation, No. 95
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | PETER B. ABELE |
| Citation | 115 Ohio App.3d 563,685 N.E.2d 863 |
| Docket Number | No. 95 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1996 |
| Parties | DRYDOCK COAL COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. OHIO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, Appellee. CA 1668. Fourth District, Athens County |
Page 563
v.
OHIO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, Appellee.
[685 N.E.2d 864] Jack V. Oakley, Buchtel and John P. Lavelle, Athens, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Mark G. Bonaventura, Assistant Attorney General, Division of Reclamation, Columbus, for appellee.
PETER B. ABELE, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Ohio Reclamation Board of Review denying a request by Drydock Coal Company, Inc., appellant herein, to remove from an approved coal strip-mining application a condition that bars appellant from mining within three hundred feet of an occupied dwelling.
Appellant assigns the following error:
"The Reclamation Board of Review erred in affirming the decision of the Chief of the Division of Reclamation, which imposed a condition to permit application No. 1289, which precludes mining in the permit area within three hundred feet (300') of occupied dwellings; the affirmation of said decision being arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the law."
On August 14, 1996, in Graham v. Drydock Coal Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 311, 667 N.E.2d 949, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that appellant does not have the right to strip-mine the property in question in the case sub judice. On September 5, 1996, we ordered the parties to this appeal to file supplemental briefs on the question of whether the Graham decision renders this appeal moot.
On September 13, 1996, appellant filed a supplemental brief arguing that the Graham decision does not render this appeal moot. Appellant wrote as follows:
"The Ohio Supreme Court said that Drydock could not strip-mine the instant property, but Drydock has not been prohibited from recovering its coal by underground mining methods without the consent of the surface owner or her 'lessee.' What remains at issue is whether Drydock can conduct underground mine-related activities anywhere on the surface of these premises, free of the 300 foot setback provisions, without any additional 'consent' beyond that which is found in the severance deeds.
" * * *
"Therefore, even though Drydock will be unable to surface mine pursuant to its permit application # 1289, the issue raised by this permit condition requiring the
Page 565
300 foot setback is not moot, because this same condition will be applied to any subsequent permit application made by Drydock to conduct underground mining operations on the instant property." (Emphasis added.)Thus, appellant argues that because it may file an underground mining permit application in the future, the three-hundred-foot issue is not moot.
On September 16, 1996, appellee filed a supplemental brief arguing that the Graham decision renders this appeal moot. Appellee wrote as follows:
"Regardless of whether the RBR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895); accord Drydock Coal Co. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation, 115 Ohio App.3d 563, 565, 685 N.E.2d 863 (4th Dist.1996). {¶ 15} "In general, 'election cases are moot where the relief sought is to have a name or an issue placed......
-
S. Cent. Ohio Pres. Soc'y v. Chillicothe Design Review Bd., Case No. 15CA3500
...date of April 25, 2014. {¶ 25} Courts are required to decide actual controversies. Drydock Coal Co. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation, 115 Ohio App.3d 563, 565, 685 N.E.2d 863, 865 (4th Dist.1996). Here, the controversy concerning the lack of any replacement plan or deadlines in the Certificate o......
-
Gemmell v. Anthony, Case No. 14CA6
...circumstances preclude it from granting effective relief. Drycok Coal Co., Inc. v. Ohio Division of Reclamation,115 Ohio App.3d 563, 685 N.E.2d 863 (4th Dist 1996). In State ex rel. Eliza Jennings, Inc. v. Noble, 49 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 551 N.E.2d 128, 131 (1990), the Court quoted and followe......
-
Brenard Fellman v. Mary E. Rice, 99-LW-4053
...the court from granting any relief, the appeal must be dismissed. See Drydock Coal Co., Inc. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 563. See also Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237 and Tschantz v. Ferguson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 131. As any decision on appeal would neither be......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895); accord Drydock Coal Co. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation, 115 Ohio App.3d 563, 565, 685 N.E.2d 863 (4th Dist.1996). {¶ 15} "In general, 'election cases are moot where the relief sought is to have a name or an issue placed......
-
S. Cent. Ohio Pres. Soc'y v. Chillicothe Design Review Bd., Case No. 15CA3500
...date of April 25, 2014. {¶ 25} Courts are required to decide actual controversies. Drydock Coal Co. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation, 115 Ohio App.3d 563, 565, 685 N.E.2d 863, 865 (4th Dist.1996). Here, the controversy concerning the lack of any replacement plan or deadlines in the Certificate o......
-
Gemmell v. Anthony, Case No. 14CA6
...circumstances preclude it from granting effective relief. Drycok Coal Co., Inc. v. Ohio Division of Reclamation,115 Ohio App.3d 563, 685 N.E.2d 863 (4th Dist 1996). In State ex rel. Eliza Jennings, Inc. v. Noble, 49 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 551 N.E.2d 128, 131 (1990), the Court quoted and followe......
-
State v. Frederick Sims, 01-LW-5124
...an advisory opinion which could not affect the matter at issue. See Drydock Coal Co., Inc. v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 563, 565. The record does not reflect that Appellant has been released from custody or that he has no post-release control sanctions imposed upon hi......