ILNews

Supreme Court takes ethanol plant emissions suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear the state’s appeal of a Court of Appeals ruling placing stricter limits on emissions from ethanol plants.

Justices granted transfer in Natural Resources Defense Council v. POET Biorefining-Cloverdale LLC et al., 49A02-1205-MI-423.

The Court of Appeals ruled for the NRDC, holding that Indiana could not permit ethanol plants to operate in a category allowing annual emissions of up to 250 tons of airborne pollutants. The plants instead should be in a category allowing up to 100 tons, the court held.

Judge Melissa May wrote the state could not properly exclude ethanol plants from the category of “chemical process plants,” without approval of the Environmental Protection Agency, and therefore, the stricter limit applied.

The Supreme Court also will hear an appeal in a worker’s compensation case that divided the Court of Appeals, Jason Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 29A02-1303-PL-298.  

The Court of Appeals found that Young, who suffered injuries while working for a tree service which left him quadriplegic, could not pursue secondary liability against Hood’s Gardens Inc. because the value of the work performed was less than $1,000. Judge James Kirsch dissented, because the value of the wood that the contractor was allowed to keep wasn’t factored into the $600 Hood’s paid to have a hickory tree removed.

The court also granted transfer last week in the case of a blogger convicted of intimidating a judge. Justices affirmed convictions Tuesday in Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana, 15S01-1405-CR-309.

Supreme Court transfer dispositions may be viewed here.


 

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT