People ex rel. Madigan v. J.T. Einoder, Inc., 28 N.E.3d 758

From 1995–2003 Tri‑State Industries, Inc. (owner of a Lynwood sand pit) and J.T. Einoder, Inc. (operator) accepted large volumes of construction and demolition debris (CDD/CCDD) and created an above‑grade fill hill (up to 90 feet by trial).
IEPA inspected the site, issued violation notices in the 1990s, and determined materials were essentially nonhazardous CCDD but that the operation lacked required permits because recyclable and nonrecyclable materials were commingled.
The Attorney General sued in 2000 for violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (open dumping, operating without a permit, etc.); later John and Janice Einoder were added individually.
The trial court found liability for operating an unpermitted waste disposal site and depositing CCDD above grade, imposed civil penalties on each defendant, and granted a mandatory injunction ordering removal of all above‑grade waste based on a 2004 amendment to 415 ILCS 5/42(e).
On appeal and here, defendants abandoned some challenges (notice/jurisdiction and the permit necessity issue); the Supreme Court addressed two issues: whether the 2004 amendment to §42(e) applies retroactively (authorizing mandatory injunctions) and whether Janice Einoder could be held individually liable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2004 amendment to §42(e) (authorizing mandatory injunctions) applies to this case	Madigan: Amendment applies retroactively; courts may order mandatory removal to address past violations	Einoder: Amendment is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively to impose new liability for past conduct	Court: Amendment is substantive (creates new liability—mandatory injunctions) and may not be applied retroactively; mandatory injunction vacated
Whether Janice Einoder is individually liable for operating an unpermitted waste site	Madigan: Janice personally participated by signing 250+ dumping contracts and dealing with IEPA after notice, supporting individual liability	Einoder: Janice wasn’t involved in day‑to‑day operations; liability should not attach to her personally	Court: Evidence supported personal involvement (authorizing contracts after notice); individual liability and penalty affirmed

Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002) (notice requirement under statute is not jurisdictional)
Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill. 2d 318 (2006) (adopting Landgraf approach for retroactivity in Illinois)
Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (2003) (statute on statutes §4 presumption: procedural amendments may be retroactive; substantive may not)
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (2001) (retroactivity analysis and presumption of prospectivity)
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for determining when statutes apply retroactively)
People ex rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc., 214 Ill. 2d 222 (2005) (pre‑amendment §42(e) allowed only prohibitory injunctions)
Dardeen v. Heartland Manor, Inc., 186 Ill. 2d 291 (1999) (discussion of procedural vs. substantive changes; remedies may be procedural in some contexts but not dispositive here)
People ex rel. Madigan v. Tang, 346 Ill. App. 3d 277 (2004) (corporate officers may be liable only for personal, active participation)
People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Petroleum Corp., 363 Ill. App. 3d 613 (2006) (standard for reviewing trial court findings on officer liability)
People v. Hughes, 329 Ill. App. 3d 322 (2002) (definition of manifest error standard)