Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Turlek v. Pollution Control Board

274 Ill. App. 3d 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Turlek v. Pollution Control Board

3 Citing cases

  1. Town Country Util. v. Ill. Poll. Control Bd.

    225 Ill. 2d 103 (Ill. 2007)   Cited 78 times
    In Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 225 Ill.2d 103, 108 (2007) the Illinois Supreme Court made clear that all units of local government, home rule and non-home rule alike, have concurrent jurisdiction with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in zoning land for landfill sites.

    We initially note the purported split in authority in the appellate court on whether the appellate court should conduct its review of the Board's decision or that of the local siting authority. Compare Turlek v. Pollution Control Board, 274 Ill. App. 3d 244, 249 (1995) ("On review, we are to determine whether the Board's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence"); File v. DL Landfill, Inc., 219 Ill. App. 3d 897, 901 (1991) ("standard of review to be exercised by both the Pollution Control Board and this court is whether, respectively, the decisions of the county board and the Pollution Control Board are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence"), with Concerned Adjoining Owners v. Pollution Control Board, 288 Ill. App. 3d 565, 576 (1997) ("the court is limited to a determination of whether the siting authority's decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence"); Fairview Area Citizens Taskforce v. Pollution Control Board, 198 Ill. App. 3d 541 (1990); Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 160 Ill. App. 3d 434 (1987); City of Rockford v. Pollution Control Board, 125 Ill. App. 3d 384, 386-87 (1984). We find these cases to be of little value because each of them provided little to no analysis a

  2. Land and Lakes Co. v. Pollution Control Bd.

    319 Ill. App. 3d 41 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident, plain or indisputable. Turlek v. Pollution Control Board, 274 Ill. App.3d 244, 653 N.E.2d 1288 (1995). Moreover, it is for the local siting authority to determine the credibility of witnesses, to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and to weigh the evidence presented.

  3. Concerned Adjoining Owners v. Pollution Control Board

    680 N.E.2d 810 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    Waste Management, 175 Ill. App.3d 1023. "That a different conclusion may be reasonable is insufficient; the opposite conclusion must be clearly evident, plain or indisputable." Turlek v. Pollution Control Board, 274 Ill. App.3d 244, 249 (1995). All of the statutory criteria must be satisfied before approval of the siting application can be granted, and the manifest weight of the evidence standard is to be applied to each and every criterion on review.