In this citizens’ noise enforcement action involving a Will County facility, the Board denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss, and struck as frivolous the alleged violations of Section 23 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/23 (2000)) and of the Humane Care for Animals Act (510 ILCS 70/3.01, 3.02, and 3.03 (2000)). The Board found that the remaining alleged violation of the Board’s regulations is neither duplicitous nor frivolous, and accepted it for hearing.
May 16, 2002BARBARA AND RONALD STUART,Complainants,v.
FRANKLIN FISHER,
Respondent.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Respondent argues that this complaint fails to state a cause of action and should bedismissed as frivolous.
If the Board rules that the complaint is
duplicitous or frivolous, it shall enter an order setting forth its reasons for soruling and shall notify the parties of the decision.
See 415 ILCS 5/23 (2000).
Further the Board finds the allegations
of violation of Humane Care of Animals Act are also frivolous as the Board is not authorizedto hear complaints alleging violations of the Humane Care of Animals Act (510 ILCS 70/3.01,3.02, and...
Allowed
brownd
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
