ILNews

7th Circuit hears Cinergy appeal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the appeal involving the 2009 retrial on clean-air rule violations at a coal-fired power plant in southeast Indiana.

On Sept. 20, a federal appellate panel made up of Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and Illana Diamond Rovner took up the case of U.S. and Hoosier Environmental Council, et al. v. Cinergy Corp., Nos. 09-3351, 09-3344, and 09-3350. The issues are whether U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney in May 2009 erred in admitting certain expert witness testimony and also whether he erred in instructing the jury on a standard that wasn’t in place at the time of the projects.

The case dating to 1999 involves violations to parts of the Clean Air Act intended to make sure that older power plants that have major upgrades also meet more modern pollution limits with new permitting and emissions controls. In a partial retrial of some claims after the original May 2008 verdict that went mostly in the utility company’s favor, jurors found that Duke – which bought Cinergy in 2006 – violated the law in two of its projects at three power plants but did not violate the law on four other projects.

At issue now on appeal is the standard used in determining whether regulations were enforceable under the federal act and whether some of the expert testimony the court permitted should not have been allowed.

The judges grilled attorneys Peter Keisler for Cinergy and Jason Dunn for the federal government about certain expert opinions and the reliability of their testimony. The judges took the case under advisement after listening to both sides.
 

Rehearing "Cinergy trial ends with split verdict" IL May 27 - June 9, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT