ILNews

Judges won’t revisit associational standing issue on same case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding it had already ruled on an associational standing question six years ago in the same case, the Indiana Court of Appeals has denied an electric utility's attempt to re-litigate that issue based on the law-of-the-case doctrine.

A unanimous decision comes in Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp., et al. v. Save the Valley, et al., No. 49A02-1011-MI-1178, a case that had been remanded to Marion Superior Court after the state’s intermediate appellate court ruled on the suit back in 2005.

The case involves the Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp’s (IKEC) solid waste permit to operate a coal-fired electric generation station in Jefferson County, known as the Clifty Creek Station. Several environmental groups including Save the Valley Inc. and Hoosier Environmental Council wanted that permit reviewed by the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication in late 2002 because of environmental and public health concerns, and IKEC moved to have the review petition dismissed on grounds that it didn’t have standing.

The citizens groups argued they had associational standing, but the trial judge granted summary judgment and that issue went before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled on that issue of first impression in January 2005, reversing the local judge and holding that Save the Valley and the other groups did have associational standing to bring the administrative review claim.

On remand, the Marion Superior judge sent the case back to the Office of Environmental Adjudication for further administrative proceedings and in March 2010 the state office found in IKEC’s favor on the merits. But IKEC wanted judicial review in part to get a court ruling that an organization can’t have administrative review under state law even if that organization states facts demonstrating its members are aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency action.

The trial judge declined to allow that associational standing argument, and granted the citizens group petition to dismiss the IKEC petition for judicial review. That led to this latest appeal.

On appeal, IKEC argues that the Court of Appeals didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on associational standing in the initial Save the Valley appeal because it had ruled the trial court didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction – therefore that issue of associational standing was “saved for another day;” and “IKEC claims that day has now arrived.”

Relying on the long-established law-of-the-case doctrine that provides an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue is binding on both the trial and appellate court in any subsequent appeal in the same case, the appellate panel rejected IKEC’s newest claim to re-litigate that issue on associational standing. After it affirmed its ruling on rehearing and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer, the appellate court’s ruling in Save the Valley I became the law of the land on that issue.

“The case and facts have remained essentially the same,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the court. “IKEC, however, appears to argue that there are extraordinary circumstances which require us to revisit our decision.”

Judges on the appeals court rejected IKEC claims that the state justices didn’t adequately consider a similar case pending at the time, even though the original Court of Appeals panel did address that issue and the Supreme Court denied transfer; and also dismissed arguments that the past ruling wasn’t valid after the justices later issued K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006), that the electric utility says voided the Save the Valley I issue of associational standing.

“The issue in Save the Valley I was whether Citizens Groups had standing to challenge IKEC’s permit and therefore whether the OEA had subject matter jurisdiction, not whether any procedural requirements were satisfied,” Judge Vaidik wrote. “Although we used the phrase ‘jurisdiction over the case,’ we used it just like the Supreme Court meant – that the OEA had jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which the case belonged. K.S. did not abrogate Save the Valley I’s discussion of associational standing, and it is therefore not an extraordinary circumstance under the law-of-the-case doctrine.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT