ILNews

Justices find statute doesn't apply to landfill facility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled on a 30-year fight between the owners of a proposed landfill and neighbors, ruling that a new law doesn’t apply to the facility or require it to get a new permit.

In Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association v. J.M. Corporation and Ralph Reed, No. 48S00-1003-PL-158, a group of Madison County residents, some who own land close to the proposed landfill of J.M. Corporation, appealed the approval of the landfill’s permit for construction. The Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals granted the zoning petition in 1981.

Over the years, JMC had been granted an operating permit by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, but because of an appeal by the citizens association, the issue went back before the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication. JMC and IDEM have met several times to attempt to finalize the operating permit, but their efforts failed and the matter was appealed again.

The appeal was resolved when the Office of Environmental Adjudication ruled in October 2004 that an operating permit had been issued to JMC in 1998 and IDEM improperly denied JMC’s permit renewal application and request for extension of time. But a new law passed in March 2008 says a facility that didn’t accept waste before April 1, 2008, had to return to county zoning authorities for a new permit. JMC installed and operated a collection container system on its property and at the end of March 2008, it had received household trash from paying customers.

The citizens association sought a declaratory judgment in June 2008 that Indiana Code 13-20-2-11 applied to JMC so it had to seek current zoning approval. The trial court granted JMC’s motion for summary judgment and denied the association’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that the statute violated the Indiana Constitution because it was a special law that could have been made to apply generally. It also ruled the collection container system didn’t constitute accepting waste.

The Supreme Court didn’t address the constitutional issue and instead focused on the application of the statute to JMC. The justices, in applying the recognized definitions of “facility,” “accept,” and “waste,” unanimously held that the statute doesn’t apply to JMC because the landfill accepted waste before April 1, 2008.

In addition, the facility was only required to have “accepted” waste before the applicable deadline and the waste was not required to be deposited or disposed of as it would be in a landfill, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

The justices reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT