16 unchanged sentences
Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s conclusions that Lyon County did not abuse its discretion and that it acted with substantial evidence in support of their decision, that the County did not violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law or any other statutes.
−Removed: The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of CRA’s claim of a due process violation, concluding that this claim should not have been dismissed and that further proceedings are necessary in the District Court on this single claim.
−Removed: The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's reversal of CRA's due process claim required that CRA be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and allowed CRA the time to conduct discovery on its due process claim.
+Added: The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the CRA’s claim of a due process violation, concluding that this claim should not have been dismissed and that further proceedings are necessary in the District Court on this single claim.
+Added: The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's reversal of the CRA's due process claim required that the CRA be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and allowed the CRA the time to conduct discovery on its due process claim.
The Company responded to the CRA discovery request on February 20, 2018, and the District Court held a hearing on April 23, 2018.
Additional discovery was also allowed by the District Court.
−Removed: On May 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on CRA’s due process claim and issued its ruling from the bench.
−Removed: The Court concluded that CRA, having been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery, was unable to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Lyon County had denied CRA of its due process rights.
−Removed: The Court, therefore, denied CRA's due process claim.
+Added: On May 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the CRA’s due process claim and issued its ruling from the bench.
+Added: The Court concluded that the CRA, having been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery, was unable to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Lyon County had denied the CRA of its due process rights.
+Added: The Court, therefore, denied the CRA's due process claim.
On July 11, 2019, the Court issued and filed a formal judgment in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining.
1 unchanged sentence
On August 14, 2019, the CRA filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the judgment to the Nevada Supreme Court.
−Removed: CRA filed their Opening Brief on January 24, 2020.
+Added: The CRA filed their Opening Brief on January 24, 2020.
The Company’s Answering Brief was filed on March 25, 2020.
+Added: The appellate briefing was completed with the filing of the CRA’s Reply Brief on May 8, 2020.
+Added: On January 11, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a final order affirming the District Court's judgment in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining.
+Added: On January 29, 2021, the CRA filed a Petition for Rehearing to the Nevada Supreme Court.
+Added: On February 25, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order denying a rehearing.
Precious Royalties LLC
3 unchanged sentences
Precious re-filed the complaint on June 5, 2019.
−Removed: On July 3, 2019, the Company answered the amended claim by Precious and filed a counterclaim that, among other things, requests reimbursement of legal fees and related interest.
+Added: On July 3, 2019, the Company answered the amended claim by Precious and filed a counterclaim that, among other
+Added: things, requests reimbursement of legal fees and related interest.
On July 26, 2019, Precious filed an answer to the counterclaim and a four-day trial was set for July 20, 2020.
2 unchanged sentences
OSHA Complaint
−Removed: On or about February 27, 2020, the Company received notice that three former employees had filed a complaint with OSHA regarding alleged wrongful termination of employment in 2019, seeking backpay, frontpay and other compensatory damages (for mental anguish and reputational harm) as well as interest and legal fees and costs.
−Removed: We believe that those terminations were lawful and intend to vigorously defend the complaint.
−Removed: From time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.
−Removed: We maintain insurance to mitigate losses related to certain risks.
−Removed: There are no matters pending or threatened that we expect to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.
+Added: On or about February 27, 2020, the Company received notice that three former employees had filed a complaint with the U.S.
+Added: Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regarding alleged wrongful termination of employment in 2019, seeking backpay, frontpay and other compensatory damages, as well as interest and legal fees and costs.
+Added: On April 10, 2020, the Company filed its reply to the complaint, and believes that those terminations were appropriate and lawful and is vigorously defending the complaint.
+Added: From time to time, we are involved in claims, investigations and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.
+Added: There are no matters pending that we expect to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Mine Safety Disclosures
2 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.