A. Any owner aggrieved by a final decision of the Department under § 10.1-1309, § 10.1-1322 or subsection D of § 10.1-1307 is entitled to judicial review thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.).
B. Any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process related to a final decision of the Department under § 10.1-1322 and who has exhausted all available administrative remedies for review of the Department's decision, shall be entitled to judicial review of the Department's decision in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.) if such person meets the standard for obtaining judicial review of a case or controversy pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution. A 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 (iii) such injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision by the court.
1971, Ex. Sess., c. 91, § 10-17.23:2; 1986, c. 615; 1988, c. 891; 1993, c. 997; 1996, c. 1032; 2022, c. 356.
Notes of Decisions
Philip Morris USA v. Chesaoeaje Bay, 643 S.E.2d 219 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 8× “The EPA found the proposal to be deficient in several respects, including a failure to provide for adequate judicial review under Code § 10.1-1318. See id. at 875. Like the then effective language of Code § 62.”
Citizens for Clean Air v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. State Air Pollution Control Bd., 412 S.E.2d 715 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 16× “CCA asserts that it has standing to appeal the decision of the Board to deny its petition for a formal hearing under § 120-02-09 of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, Code § 10.1-1318 (Air Pollution Control Law), and Code § 9-6.”
Commonwealth v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code § 10.1-1318(A). This provision satisfies CAA § 502(b)(6)’s requirement that the permit “applicant” be allowed to seek judicial review.”
Commonwealth v. Browner (4th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code § 10.1-1318(A). This provision satisfies CAA § 502(b)(6)'s require- ment that the permit "applicant" be allowed to seek judicial review.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-1318(A) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1996).
“Va. Code § 10.1-1318(A). This provision satisfies CAA § 502(b)(6)’s requirement that the permit “applicant” be allowed to seek judicial review.”
Commonwealth v. Browner (4th Cir. 1996).
“Va. Code § 10.1-1318(A). This provision satisfies CAA § 502(b)(6)'s require- ment that the permit "applicant" be allowed to seek judicial review.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-1318(B) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Browner, 80 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1996).
“Va. Code § 10.1-1318(A). This provision satisfies CAA § 502(b)(6)’s requirement that the permit “applicant” be allowed to seek judicial review.”
Commonwealth v. Browner (4th Cir. 1996).
“Va. Code § 10.1-1318(A). This provision satisfies CAA § 502(b)(6)'s require- ment that the permit "applicant" be allowed to seek judicial review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.