Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > People ex rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc.

Case Date: 01/27/2004
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-03-0021 Rel

No. 2--03--0021
 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE ex rel. JAMES E. RYAN,

          Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee,

v.

AGPRO, INC. and DAVID J. SCHULTE,
Indiv. and as President of Agpro, Inc.,

          Defendants-Appellees and Cross-
          Appellants.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit Court
of Ogle County.


No. 94--CH--8



Honorable
Timothy P. Nieman,
Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE KAPALA delivered the opinion of the court:

The State brought an action in 1994 against defendants, Agpro, Inc. (Agpro) and David J.Schulte (Schulte), individually and as president of Agpro, alleging violations of the EnvironmentalProtection Act (the Act) (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1992)). The State sought injunctive relief, costrecovery, and civil penalties. The matter was tried to the court without a jury in 2002. The trial courtentered judgment in favor of the State and against defendants in the amount of $54,432.25 for theState's pre-July 1996 remediation costs and imposed a $5,000 civil penalty against defendants. TheState appeals and defendants cross-appeal.

I. FACTS

In a second amended complaint for injunctive relief, cost recovery, and civil penalties the Statealleged that from May 1988 to April 1993 Schulte was the president of Agpro, an Illinois corporationengaged in the business of custom application and distribution of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. It was alleged further that defendants were the owners of the Agpro site located at 803 Central Streetin the town of Woosung (Agpro site). In count I, titled "Water Pollution," it was alleged thatdefendants, as a result of their business operations, caused or allowed pesticides to be dischargedupon the ground and, in turn, into the surface water and groundwater in violation of section 12(a)of the Act (415 ILCS 5/12(a) (West 1996)). The State alleged that the water pollution was ongoingand prayed for a finding that defendants violated section 12(a) of the Act. In count II it was allegedthat defendants created a water pollution hazard in violation of section 12(d) of the Act (415 ILCS5/12(d) (West 1996)). In count III it was alleged that defendants violated section 12(a) and spillprevention regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code