Annaco, Inc. v. Hodel
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
675 F. Supp. 1052 (1987)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) regulated strip mining in the United States. However, the SMCRA generally exempted strip mines of two acres or less. But if separate small tracts of land met the SMCRA’s relatedness standard, that exemption would be lost, and the small mines would be subject to the law. A mining site met the relatedness standard if it was two acres or less and was physically and economically related to another small mining site. The SMCRA also authorized states to enact their own regulatory schemes that were equally or more stringent than the SMCRA. Kentucky did so and sought to regulate strip mining at its borders. The federal government (defendant) inspected the mines of Annaco, Inc. (plaintiff) and found them to be in violation of the relatedness provision. The federal government notified the Kentucky government of the issue. Eventually, Kentucky reached a settlement with Annaco that did not require Annaco to reclaim the land. But the federal government again inspected the land and concluded that the violation persisted. Annaco then petitioned an administrative-law judge (ALJ) for temporary relief from the federal government’s order, which the ALJ denied. Annaco appealed, claiming that the federal government did not have jurisdiction because Kentucky had enacted a more stringent system for implementing the SMCRA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Siler, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.