IN.gov - Skip Navigation

Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.


Mobile Site RSS Feeds

NRC > AOPA Committee > CADDNAR > CADDNAR Updates CADDNAR Updates

Subscribe for e-mail updates

Recent Caddnar Decisions (August 5, 2009)

 

Henze v. Powers Logging & Timber, 12 CADDNAR 188 (2009)
The Uniform Commercial Code was applied to construe a timber buyer's contract for the purchase and sale of standing timber, in Ripley County, where the parties left open several contract terms. (Administrative Cause No. 09-072F)

DNR v. Allen and Allen v. DNR, 12 CADDNAR 175 (2009)
Companion cases considered the revocation of a timber buyer's license for alleged violations of IC 25-36.5.  Following summary judgment, revocation was ordered in Administrative Cause No. 08-048F.  The administrative law judge determined a DNR letter which had denied license renewal, and was at issue in Administrative Cause No. 09-008F, was inconsistent with IC 4-21.5-3-5(g) and must be vacated.  With the license revocation ordered in Administrative Cause No. 08-048F, Administrative Cause No. 09-008F was also moot. (Administrative Cause No. 08-048F)

United Minerals v. DNR, 12 CADDNAR 153 (2009)
A notice of violation for a blasting violation was affirmed under the Indiana Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.  Although comparisons of data near the blast site provided seemingly anomalous results, the totality of the evidence was found to support the accuracy of the DNR's seismograph results.  Judicial review is pending in the Gibson Circuit Court. (Administrative Cause No. 07-186R)

Rosenbaum Farms v. A&S Logging and Capitol Indemnity, 12 CADDNAR 144 (2009)
A timber buyer's written contract was construed for the sale and purchase of standing timber in LaPorte County. (Administrative Cause No. 09-036F)

Ogden Dunes v. Army Corps & DNR, 12 CADDNAR 137 (2009)
A municipality petitioned for administrative review from DNr permits issued to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance of navigational channels on Lake Michigan and on a nearby tributary in Porter County.  As matters of first impression in Indiana, the Commission considered Army Corps responsibilities under 33 USC 1323 and under 16 USC 1456 (the "federal consistency" provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act).  The municipality entered a private agreement with the Army Corps, after which the municipality dismissed its petition. (Administrative Cause No. 09-104W)

Stell v. Allen, d/b/a A&S Logging, 12 CADDNAR 124 (2009)
Extensive application of the Uniform Commercial Code construed a timber buyer's written contract for the sale and purchase of standing timber, in Porter County, where the parties left open numerous contract terms. (Administrative Cause No. 08-192F)

Yoder v. DNR & Bouwkamp, 12 CADDNAR 88 (2009)
The Commission affirmed, in part, an NOV alleging violations of the Lakes Preservation Act (IC 14-26-2), the Ditches and Lakes Act (IC 14-26-2), and the Flood Control Act (IC 14-28-1) for a site on Hackenberg Lake in LaGrange County.  The decision included first-impression constructions of statutory terms, including "channel", "stream", and "ditch".  Laches and the rule of lenity were applied to provide partial relief to the NOV recipients. (Administrative Cause No. 07-205W)

DNR v. McIntosh, 12 CADDNAR 83 (2009) 
A permit was revoked for failure to perform abatement, as directed in a notice of violation, with respect to a well issued for petroleum production. (Administrative Cause No. 08-199G) 

Dean and Marilyn Ray v. Lukis, et al., 12 CADDNAR 69 (2009) 
Applying administrative res judicata, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed a request for review regarding the disputed placement of temporary piers in a public freshwater lake.  The dispute was previously adjudicated in Lukis v. Ray, Blackburn and Blackburn, 888 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. App. 2008). (Administrative Cause No. 09-057W) 

Island Prop. Owners Ass’n., Inc. v. Clemens and DNR, 12 CADDNAR 56 (2009) 
The Commission revoked both the general license for a pier of one person, and an individual license for a “group pier” of another, where the two persons disputed each other’s pier placement in a public freshwater lake.  The decision considered the pre-licensure notice requirements of IC 14-11-4 and the post-licensure notice requirements of IC 4-21.5-3-5.  Judicial review is pending in the Kosciusko Circuit Court. (Administrative Cause No. 08-075W)