Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Water Control Board v. Crutchfieldgreen2 sentences2011“The standing provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29 require persons challenging a final decision by the Board to establish that they meet all three enumerated requirements of the statute before a court will consider the merits of their challenge to a governmental action.” State Water Control Bd. v. Crutchfield, 265 Va. 416, 426-27 , 578 S.E.2d 762, 767-68 (2003). 2011“The standing provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29 require persons challenging a final decision by the Board to establish that they meet all three enumerated requirements of the statute before a court will consider the merits of their challenge to a governmental action.” State Water Control Bd. v. Crutchfield, 265 Va. 416, 426-27 , 578 S.E.2d 762, 767-68 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Concerned Taxpayers v. Department of Environmental Qualitygreen2 sentences2005See Concerned Taxpayers, 31 Va.App. at 796 , 525 S.E.2d at 632 . 2005See Concerned Taxpayers, 31 Va.App. at 796 , 525 S.E.2d at 632 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. State Water Control Board
green
2 sentences2010A person shall be deemed to meet such standard if (i) such person has suffered an actual or imminent injury which is an invasion of a legally protected interest and which is concrete and particularized; (ii) such injury is fairly traceable to the decision of the Board and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (in) such injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision by the court. 5 In Stumpy Lake I, we concluded an organization may sue on behalf of its members, holding that “fulfillment of the tests set forth in Lujan and Hunt results in 2010A person shall be deemed to meet such standard if (i) such person has suffered an actual or imminent injury which is an invasion of a legally protected interest and which is concrete and particularized; (ii) such injury is fairly traceable to the decision of the Board and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (in) such injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision by the court. 5 In Stumpy Lake I, we concluded an organization may sue on behalf of its members, holding that “fulfillment of the tests set forth in Lujan and Hunt results in | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2004The City said that any injury suffered is not caused by the Board’s decision to issue the state permit, but only results from the Corps’ decision to award a federal permit. 261 Va. at 374-75 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Alliance to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2000As we noted in Alliance to Save the Mattaponi, 30 Va.App. at 701 n. 7, 519 S.E.2d at 418 n. 7, *477 however, the SWCL provides expressly for judicial review of the agency action at issue, and therefore we need not look to the provisions of VAPA in order to determirie whether appellants have standing to challenge the Project. 2000As we noted in Alliance to Save the Mattaponi, 30 Va.App. at 701 n. 7, 519 S.E.2d at 418 n. 7, *477 however, the SWCL provides expressly for judicial review of the agency action at issue, and therefore we need not look to the provisions of VAPA in order to determirie whether appellants have standing to challenge the Project. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Environmental Defense Fund v. Virginia State Water Control Board
green
2 sentences1991In Environmental Defense Fund v. State Water Control Board, 12 Va. App. 456 , 404 S.E.2d 728 (1991), decided subsequent to the trial court’s ruling, the court held that the standing requirement of Code § 62.1-44.29 is controlling over the standardized court review provided for in Code § 9-6.14:16. 1991In Environmental Defense Fund v. State Water Control Board, 12 Va. App. 456 , 404 S.E.2d 728 (1991), decided subsequent to the trial court’s ruling, the court held that the standing requirement of Code § 62.1-44.29 is controlling over the standardized court review provided for in Code § 9-6.14:16. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.