DK Excavating, Inc. v. Miano
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
549 S.E.2d 280 (2001)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
DK Excavating, Inc. (DK) (plaintiff) purchased two acres of land with the intent of building an equipment shop and yard. DK went to the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (department) (defendant) and department director Michael Miano (defendant) with a request. Specifically, DK asked the department whether DK could remove and sell coal from the property without a surface mining permit under the West Virginia Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (WVSMCRA). The department responded that proposed regulations were pending with the federal government that would allow DK’s requested actions but that the actions were not permissible under current law. A state board finalized the decision, and DK appealed to the courts. The lower court concluded that DK’s proposed actions did not fall under the WVSMCRA’s definition of “surface mining,” which had been amended to exclude coal extraction authorized as incidental to other uses of the land. But the federal government had disapproved this definition as inconsistent with the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The department appealed, claiming that the lower court’s ruling violated preemption principles. Thus, the parties did not dispute the applicability of the WVSMCRA’s exemption to DK—they disputed only the validity of the exemption itself.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Albright, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
