Date: 10-24-2001

Case Style: Appolo Fuels, Inc. v. Bruce Babbitt

Case Number: 00-5376

Judge: Martha Craig Daughtrey

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: James R. Golden of Denham, Golden & Nagle, Middlesboro, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Defendant's Attorney: Andrew C. Mergen, United States Department of Justice, Land & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Description: . The plaintiff, Appolo Fuels, Inc., appeals the district court's judgment upholding the decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals that Appolo violated federal regulations requiring the elimination of "highwalls" (described in the record as "cliff-like" rock walls) at its surface coal-mining site in Kentucky. Appolo maintains that it had initially backfilled the site properly and that the subsequent re-exposure of highwalls does not violate the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Although the Board and the federal courts have consistently held that such re-exposure does violate the Act, Appolo claims that these cases misinterpret the Act, fail to consider modern engineering data, and should be overturned. Second, Appolo claims that the federal action was barred by res judicata because the Commonwealth of Kentucky had already decided not to hold Appolo responsible for any alleged violation. Recognizing that the Interior Board of Land Appeals has consistently ruled that the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply to the Office of Surface Mining, Appolo again urges this court to overturn a line of precedent. Finally, Appolo maintains that the Office of Surface Mining lacked jurisdiction to order the reclamation action. However, as the district court found, the federal statute and regulations, case law, and legislative history indicate that although Kentucky has primary responsibility to enforce mining regulations, the federal agency maintains oversight jurisdiction to enforce those regulations if the state fails to do so. For the reasons set out below, we find no error in the district court's decision sustaining the ruling of the Board, and we therefore affirm.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None