Court Opinion

ID: 9665395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:47:18.374175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.359582
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. Sugarloaf agreed to the new conditions for Permit No. 272-M-CO on June 9, 1986, by the signature of its attorney, Sam Sexton, Jr. A vice president of Sugarloaf then signed the same document six months later. Also on June 9, 1986, BPA established its irrevocable letter of credit covering Permit No. 272-M-CO, effective that same date. The hearing officer found: It is reasonable to conclude that the Renewal Permit and BPA’s letter of credit were basically simultaneous acts. The only reason it was necessary to obtain BPA’s letter of credit was because the Renewal Permit required it. It is unreasonable to believe that BPA was not aware of the Renewal Permit. The Pollution Control & Ecology Commission adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer to forfeit the bond. The circuit court found that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The finding of the hearing officer, albeit based on circumstantial evidence, makes good common sense to me. I would affirm. DECEMBER 14, 1992 Harper, Young, Smith and Maurras, by: S. Walton Maurras, for appellant. Steve Weaver, William Eckert, III, and Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A., by: Ann P. Faitz, for appellee. Hays, J., joins.