# Hindman v. Pollution Control Board

> Appellate Court of Illinois · October 26, 1976 · 42 Ill. App. 3d 766

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744978

## Case

- **Full name:** PAUL HINDMAN, Petitioner, v. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** October 26, 1976
- **Citations:** 42 Ill. App. 3d 766; 1 Ill. Dec. 481; 356 N.E.2d 669; 1976 Ill. App. LEXIS 3198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eberspacher
- **Judges:** George J. Moran
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744978

## Opinion text

Mr. JUSTICE EBERSPACHER, dissenting:
While I concur in the disposition of the charge based on failure to secure the necessary operating permit, I would reverse the order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board on the charge of open burning as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. The one fire on August 21, 1974, which the respondent extinguished after being notified, was all that was shown as the basis for sustaining the charge of open burning. It is undisputed that petitioner did not set the fire, and there is no evidence that the fire was the result of a lack of reasonable care on the part of petitioner. I consider the holdings of McIntyre v. Pollution Control Board, 8 Ill. App. 3d 1026 , 291 N.E.2d 253 , and Alton & Southern Ry. Co. v. Pollution Control Board, 12 Ill. App. 3d 319 , 297 N.E.2d 762 , as applicable to that charge. The cases upon which the majority sustains the Board on that charge, Bath, Cobin and Meadowlark Farms, are, in my opinion, clearly distinguishable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9744978. Public record. Not legal advice.