![]() ![]() this Court has also repeatedly admonished that the rule is to be cautiously applied. Scansteel Service Center, Inc.: While it has been recognized that summary judgment is designed to expedite the disposition of cases and avoid unnecessary trials when no genuine issues of material fact are raised. The Kentucky Supreme Court further explained this summary judgment standard in Steelvest, Inc. STANDARD OF REVIEWĪ motion for summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR 2 56.03. Having considered the record and the law, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. Salviola now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. On October 2, 2019, the court entered an Amended Summary Judgment in the Cabinet's favor and awarded it fines and penalties totaling $1,420,460.00. Due to a clerical error in the monetary amount set out in the court's order granting summary judgement, the Cabinet filed a motion to correct the error, which the court granted. The Cabinet subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment which, after a hearing on the matter, was granted by the trial court. On November 27, 2018, Salviola was served with the Cabinet's complaint, to which she filed an answer. On November 19, 2018, the court set aside default judgment against Salviola and sustained the default judgment against Viking. The trial court subsequently entered a default judgment against both. On June 14, 2018, the Cabinet filed suit in the Franklin Circuit Court against Viking and Salviola seeking enforcement of over one million dollars in fines and fees. Salviola was not named as a party in any of the administrative cases. There is no indication that Viking responded to these charges or the final administrative orders resulting therefrom. These were all the result of administrative hearings held by the Cabinet. ![]() Because these attempted permit transfers occurred without the Cabinet's approval pursuant to KRS Chapter 350, between 2014-2018, forty-six final orders were issued by the Cabinet against Appellant attempting to rectify numerous regulatory violations. Attendant to the transfer of Viking were several attempted transfers of its mining permits. Thereafter, she transferred her ownership interest in Viking to a successor entity, Mine Investments, LLC, a subsidiary of NewLead Holdings. On November 1, 2012, Salviola went from being an 80% shareholder of Viking to being the 100% shareholder. Appellee in the present case is the Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (hereafter "Cabinet"). Viking was a corporate entity holding surface coal mining permits issued pursuant to KRS 1 Chapter 350. Internal applications, then our B2B based Bizapedia Pro API™ might be the answer for you.This case involves numerous regulatory violations by Appellant, Perian Salviola (hereafter "Salviola"), and Viking Acquisition Group (hereafter "Viking"). If you are looking for something more than a web based search utility and need to automate company and officer searches from within your WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE ADVANCED SEARCH FORM? Utilize our advanced search form to filter the search results by Company Name, City, State, Postal Code, Filing Jurisdiction, Entity Type, Registered Agent,įile Number, Filing Status, and Business Category. While logged in and authenticated, you will not be asked to solve any complicated Recaptcha V2 challenges. In addition, all pages on Bizapedia will be served to you completely ad freeĪnd you will be granted access to view every profile in its entirety, even if the company chooses to hide the private information on their profile from the general public. Your entire office will be able to use your search subscription. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |