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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT