Legal Opinion
United States v. Copar Pumice Company
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided May 6, 2013No. 12-2104PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRISCOE, Chief Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal arising out of an action filed by the United States against Defendants Kelly Armstrong, Debbie Cantrup, Richard Cook, Shirley Cook (collectively “the Cooks”), and Copar Pumice Company, Inc. (“Copar”) for trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The claims are based on allegations that the Cooks and Copar removed and used undersized pumice from their mine in violation of their settlement agreement with the United States, the Jemez National Recreation Area Act (“JNRAA”), 16 U.S.C. § 460jjj, and applicable regulations. Although the case…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Chevron Corporation v. Aaron PageCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2014
- New Mexico Ex Rel. State Engineer v. TrujilloCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
- Niemi v. LasshoferCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
- Jane Doe v. Roy BlackCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
- United States v. PunnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.