ILNews

Majority upholds finding of contempt

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three Indiana justices affirmed a trial court order finding a business owner, his attorney and an environmental firm in contempt for doing work on a site with possible environmental issues after a temporary restraining order had been issued.

At issue in John Witt, HydroTech Corp, and Mark Shere v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., and Jack R. James, No. 38S02-1110-CV-608, is whether the decision by John Witt and attorney Mark Shere to backfill holes on Witt’s property – which were dug to remove underground storage tanks and test soil – violated the terms of a temporary restraining order obtained by Jay Petroleum Inc. and Jack James, the previous owners of the land.

Jay Petroleum wanted to have its own environmental consultant on location when HydroTech Corp. began removal of the UST. The parties couldn’t agree and Witt refused to allow Jay Petroleum’s environmental consultant on the property. Jay Petroleum and James obtained a temporary restraining order that said Witt and the others are enjoined and restrained from “conducting UST removal, soil excavation, or other environmental investigation and remediation activities on the Property …”

Shere interpreted the TRO to mean that HydroTech could backfill the holes for safety reasons and also conduct testing on one of the exposed pits. Jay Petroleum filed for contempt of court; the trial court found Witt, HydroTech and Shere in contempt and held them jointly and severally liable for $108,487.32 in costs and attorney fees.

Justices Brent Dickson and Steven David and Chief Justice Randall Shepard upheld the order, finding the collection of the samples clearly violated the order and that if they believed backfilling was the only way to provide for public safety, Witt should have sought permission from the trial court. The majority also upheld the decision to exclude from trial any evidence gathered after the entry of the TRO and the costs imposed.

Justices Robert Rucker and Frank Sullivan dissented, believing that the order did not prohibit any activity to ensure that the site wouldn’t pose a threat to public safety. With regards to the testing of samples, the record is unclear whether they were taken before or after the restraining order was issued and whether Witt would have used those tests in the case, wrote Rucker.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT