![]() ![]() ![]() In 2015, the Court of Appeals raised the bar on standing in Cherry v. Board of Adjustment case broadened the inquiry to include injury resulting from more than a loss of property value-in that case traffic, water drainage, and safety. ![]() But then we went into the wilderness for close to 40 years with several subsequent cases proclaiming that Jackson stood for the proposition that you must have a loss in property value to have standing. The Court held that a reduction in one’s property value resulting from an illegal use is sufficient to grant standing. Supreme Court case where neighbors challenged approval of a mobile home park. To quote Bugs Bunny, we “took a wrong turn at Albuquerque” with Jackson v. In land use and zoning cases, our courts keep struggling to define who can challenge a local government’s decision affecting land use. Thus, the nature and existence of standing may be raised at any time. Without standing, a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case. Only someone who has been harmed may appeal to our courts, and the harm must be one that can be addressed by judicial remedy. END SIDEBAR.Īs a general rule, “standing” refers to a citizen’s right to avail him or herself of remedies offered by our judiciary. ![]() The case descriptions and interpretations are hers alone. The case summaries have been prepared by Olivia Fajen in my firm without edits from me as to substance. Accordingly – and since the ethics of blog writing are undefined in these contexts – I’ll only make general comments on standing and add a couple of innocuous points on these cases. SIDEBAR: My colleague Kip Nelson and I have our own standing case in the N.C. “Standing” is suddenly a hot topic in zoning law, with three recent appellate opinions on the subject, one of which was a case of first impression decided by our Supreme Court. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |