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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT