Court Opinion

ID: 9522659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:30:21.377462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:30.349288
License: Public Domain

*924GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. Because the Court of Appeals opinion is published at 589 N.E.2d 1195, I feel it is unnecessary to go into detail. I would point out, however, the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals follows what I consider to be a well-reasoned approach to the case. }
At page 1200, the Court of Appeals states:
"In sum, IDEM [Indiana Department of Environmental Management] is not bound by the Decree in the way that the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] interpreted it. Holding a hearing on this issue is not a collateral attack on the Decree because IDEM is not seeking to avoid the Decree's mandates, but is acting within the Decree's allowable parameters. See Record at 84-46; 1945-50. As the trial court correctly found, IDEM, while bound by an upper PCB effluent limitation of one ppb, is not bound to adopt an absolute maximum limitation of one ppb."
The fact that the Conards were not permitted to enter the federal law suit which led to the agreement in no way forecloses them from now asserting their rights under the terms of the agreement.
I1 believe the opinion of the Court of Appeals is well-reasoned and reaches the correct result. I would deny transfer in this case.