United States v. Rapoca Energy Co.
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
613 F. Supp. 1161 (1985)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) imposed certain requirements on strip mining operations and underground mining operations that had surface impacts. One requirement obligated operators of coal mining operations to pay a fee to the federal government for each ton of coal mined. The Rapoca Energy Company (Rapoca) (defendant) owned several large tracts of land containing coal. Rapoca did not remove the coal itself but instead contracted with 48 different, independent entities to mine the coal. Rapoca had several duties in its relationships with these entities. For example, Rapoca always did the initial engineering work and site development (e.g., building access roads and sediment ponds). Rapoca also selected the specific locations to be mined, providing location information to the contractors. The entities were allowed to bring the removed coal only to Rapoca, which paid a fixed price per ton. However, the day-to-day mining operations were the responsibilities of the 48 individual entities. The federal government sued Rapoca under the SMCRA, claiming that Rapoca owed the government a fee per ton of coal removed. Rapoca argued that it was not an operator under the SMCRA and thus could not be liable. According to Rapoca, the 48 individual entities were responsible for the fees. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on that question.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Turk, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.