People ex rel. Madigan v. J.T. Einoder, Inc., 2015 IL 117193

From 1995–2003 a Lynwood, Illinois site owned/operated by Tri‑State and serviced by J.T. Einoder, Inc. accepted large volumes of construction and demolition debris (mostly CCDD), forming an above‑grade fill/hill.
IEPA inspected the site, issued violation notices, and concluded the materials were solid waste when commingled; test pits later showed the pile was 99.99% nonhazardous CCDD.
The Attorney General sued Tri‑State and JTE in 2000; John and Janice Einoder were later added individually. The circuit court found all defendants liable for operating an unpermitted waste disposal site and depositing CCDD above grade.
The court assessed civil penalties against each defendant and granted the State a mandatory injunction ordering removal of all above‑grade material; defendants appealed.
On appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court the parties narrowed issues to (1) whether the 2004 amendment to 415 ILCS 5/42(e) (authorizing mandatory injunctions) could be applied retroactively, and (2) whether Janice Einoder could be held individually liable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended 415 ILCS 5/42(e) (2004) permitting mandatory injunctions applies to this case	Madigan: The amendment applies to pending matters and allows the court to order mandatory relief to abate violations	Einoders: Amendment is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively to impose new liability for past conduct	Amendment is substantive (creates new liability — mandatory injunctions) and may not be applied retroactively; mandatory injunction vacated
Whether Janice Einoder is individually liable for Act violations	Madigan: Janice personally participated by signing over 250 contracts authorizing dumping after knowledge of IEPA citations and discussions	Einoders: Janice was not involved in day‑to‑day operations and lacked personal participation required for individual liability	Circuit court’s finding is not against manifest weight; Janice personally liable and penalty affirmed

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for assessing retroactive application of statutes)
Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill. 2d 318 (2006) (Illinois adopts Landgraf approach)
Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (2003) (distinguishes procedural vs. substantive amendments under section 4 presumption)
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (2001) (retroactivity analysis and presumption of prospectivity)
People ex rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc., 214 Ill. 2d 222 (2005) (pre‑amendment §42(e) allowed only prohibitory injunctions)
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002) (notice requirement under §31 is not jurisdictional)
Dardeen v. Heartland Manor, Inc., 186 Ill. 2d 291 (1999) (discusses procedural/remedial amendments)
People ex rel. Madigan v. Tang, 346 Ill. App. 3d 277 (2004) (corporate officer individual liability requires personal involvement and active participation)