Court Opinion

ID: 9527595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:45.776296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:56.123325
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Clark, and add the further comment that even were we to allocate the burden of proof in the manner suggested by the majority, the record sustains the Board’s findings. In my opinion the majority’s characterization of the expert testimony as “contradictory” (73 Ill. 2d at 238) is erroneous and the record would support the finding that any of the three methods suggested would substantially abate the foundry odors. The record shows, too, that Marshall Wells, president of the defendant company, admitted the feasibility of one of the methods and expressed the opinion that it merited further exploration. I would reverse the appellate court and affirm the order of the Pollution Control Board.