Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

PITTSTON COAL COMPANY v. BABBITT (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.

PITTSTON COAL COMPANY;  Clinchfield Coal Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bruce BABBITT,1 Secretary, Department of The Interior;  Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy, Division of Mine Land Reclamation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-1606.

Decided: October 06, 1995

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

ARGUED:  Wade Wallihan Massie, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellants.   Katherine Leatherman Adams, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Stephen M. Hodges, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Virginia;  John R. Woodrum, Smith, Heenan & Althen, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.   Vicki A. O'Meara, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Dirk D. Snel, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;   Charles Gault, United States Department of the Interior, Knoxville, Tennessee;  Richard H. McNeer, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.;  Zane B. Scott, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, for Appellees.

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.

FOOTNOTES

2.   In view of this disposition, we deny the appellants' motion to continue to hold this case in abeyance, or alternatively, to allow supplemental briefing.

Affirmed by published opinion.   Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge RUSSELL and Judge WILKINS joined.

Was this helpful?

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

PITTSTON COAL COMPANY v. BABBITT (1995)

Docket No: No. 92-1606.

Decided: October 06, 1995

Court: United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard