Pittston Coal Co. v. Babbitt
This text of 66 F.3d 714 (Pittston Coal Co. v. Babbitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge RUSSELL and Judge WILKINS joined.
OPINION
Appellants Pittston Company (Pittston) and Clinchfield Coal Company (Clinchfield) brought this action asserting that the proposed denial of their applications for mining permits violated their procedural due process rights. Appellees Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, and the Commonwealth of Virginia moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The district court granted the motion, holding that, pursuant to 30 U.S.C § 1276(a)(1), the case could only be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F.Supp. 344, 353 (W.D.Va.1992). Pittston and Clinchfield appeal.
We have carefully examined the record, briefs, arguments of the parties, and the opinion of the district court. We agree with the district court that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1). Therefore, we affirm on the compelling reasoning of the district court.2
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 F.3d 714, 1995 WL 592324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittston-coal-co-v-babbitt-ca4-1995.