Legal Opinion
In Re Hamm Mine Act 250 Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided August 20, 2009No. 08-249PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶ 1. This case arises as the result of flooding allegedly caused by the failure of past operators of an open-pit talc mine to abide by the conditions of an Act 250 permit. Luzenac America, Inc. and U.S. Talc Co. (Luzenac) appeal the Environmental Court’s determination that the mine continues to be subject to Act 250 jurisdiction after mine operations ceased and the Act 250 permit expired. We affirm.
¶2. After purchasing land from the Hamm family in 1981, Vermont Tale obtained an Act 250 permit from the District 2 Environmental Commission the following year to operate a talc mine on the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Agency of Natural Resources v. WestonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
- In re Appeal of GriffinSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
- In re Appeal of Tekram PartnersSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- In Re HuntleySupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
- Timberlake Associates v. City of WinooskiSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Evans Group, Inc. v. Robert Foti and Foti Fuels, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2012
- Evans Group, Inc. v. Robert Foti and Foti Fuels, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2012
- Fontaine Act 250 ApplicationVermont Superior Court · 2011
- In Re Village Associates Act 250 Land Use PermitSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- In Re Village Associates Act 250 Land Use PermitSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.