 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Cedar Bluff v. Citizens Caring for Children12/30/2004
y in fact' ...; (2) a 'causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of'; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'" Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Henri-Duval Winery, L.L.C., [Ms. 1010070, Sept. 19, 2003] __ So. 2d __ (Ala. 2003)(quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). " mere 'interest in a problem' no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the [plaintiff] is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the [plaintiff] 'adversely affected' or 'aggrieved' within the meaning of the [Administrative Procedures Act]." Sierra Club, 405 U.S. at 739. "Absent the necessary allegations of demonstrable, particularized injury there can be no confidence of 'a real need to exercise the power of judicial review.'" Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975) (quoting Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 221-22).
A particularized injury "must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense. The complainant must allege an injury to himself that is 'distinct and palpable,' as opposed to merely ' bstract,' and the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical.'" Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 156 (1990) (citations omitted). More specifically, a plaintiff must allege "specific concrete facts demonstrating that the challenged practices harm him, and that he personally would benefit in a tangible way from the court's intervention." Warth, 422 U.S. at 508. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that "the injury 'fairly can be traced to the challenged action' and 'is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.'" Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155 (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 41 (1976)).
CCC and Green have alleged only that if the election and the resulting sale of alcohol in the Town of Cedar Bluff are allowed to stand, Cedar Bluff will suffer a general harm to its "welfare, health, peace and morals." Neither CCC nor Green alleges that Green himself or members of CCC will suffer the injury . They have not alleged "specific concrete facts demonstrating that the challenged practices harm [them]." See Warth, 422 U.S. at 508.
CCC and Green have not alleged a personal injury that creates a palpable harm that "'fairly can be traced back to the challenged action.'" Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155. Finally, because CCC and Green cannot show that the injury "'fairly can be traced back to the challenged action,'" they cannot argue that the injury "'is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.'" Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155. Although CCC and Green have not sufficiently alleged the actual or imminent, particularized, concrete, and palpable injury that is required for a showing of standing, it is not impossible for a resident of the Town of Cedar Bluff to do so. A proper allegation of injury in fact would state that Green, or members of CCC, are residents of the Town of Cedar Bluff and that they are or will be harmed in a particular concrete way by the sale of alcohol in the Town of Cedar Bluff, because the municipality does not have the infrastructure necessary to deal with the ramifications of alcohol sales. The allegation would show that the injury "'fairly can be traced to the challenged action,'" and that it would be "'likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.'" Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155. This Court cannot "create its own jurisdiction by embellishing otherwise deficient allegations of standing." Id. Therefore, the holding of the main opinion is correct.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|