Va. Code » Title 62.1. Waters of the State, Ports and Harbors » Chapter 3.1. State Water Control Law » Article 5. Enforcement and Appeal Procedure
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.29 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any owner aggrieved by or 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 Board under subdivision (5), (8a), (8b), (8c), or (19) of § 62.1-44.15 or § 62.1-44.15:20, 62.1-44.15:21, 62.1-44.15:22, 62.1-44.15:23, 62.1-44.16, 62.1-44.17, 62.1-44.19, or 62.1-44.25, whether such decision is affirmative or negative, is entitled to judicial review thereof 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.

1970, c. 638; 1986, c. 615; 1996, c. 1032; 2000, cc. 1032, 1054; 2007, c. 659; 2016, cc. 68, 758.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Philip Morris USA v. Chesaoeaje Bay, 643 S.E.2d 219 (Va. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philip Morris USA v. Chesaoeaje Bay, 643 S.E.2d 219 (Va. 2007). · cites it 48× “Specifically, the issue presented in these appeals is whether the organization has representational and individual standing to request judicial review to challenge the issuance of the permit pursuant to the provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29. BACKGROUND Philip Morris USA Inc.”
All. v. Com., Dept. of Environ. Quality, 621 S.E.2d 78 (Va. 2005). · cites it 18× “7 Initially, the Commonwealth acknowledges that both the APA and the Water Control Law provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29 create an express waiver of the Commonwealth's immunity from suit.”
Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 667 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “The Commonwealth acknowledges that Code § 62.1-44.29 expressly waives sovereign immunity for purposes of providing judicial review of SWCB decisions to issue or deny permits under Code § 62.”
Env't Def. Fund v. Virginia State Water Control Bd., 404 S.E.2d 728 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 33× “14:16 of the Virginia Administrative Process Act (“VAPA”) affords EDF a right of judicial review in addition to that provided for in Code § 62.1-44.29; (2) whether EDF lacked standing under the applicable provision to seek judicial review of the Board’s case decision; (3)…”
Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. State Water Control Bd., 616 S.E.2d 39 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22× “Another CFSL member also enjoys the natural beauty of the Stumpy Lake area and spends time viewing the wildlife, which includes turtles, deer, fox, and bald eagles.”
All. to Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth, 519 S.E.2d 413 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 38× “Appellants contend they have standing under either Code § 62.1-44.29 of the State Water Control Law (“SWCL”) or Code § 9-6.”
Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth, 541 S.E.2d 920 (Va. 2001). · cites it 9× “” The Board’s and the City’s demurrers, insofar as pertinent to the issue presented in these appeals, relied upon a statute that is central to our ruling here, that is, Code § 62.1-44.29, a part of the Virginia *374 Act governing judicial review of a final decision of the Board…”
State Water Control Bd. v. Crutchfield, 578 S.E.2d 762 (Va. 2003). · cites it 10× “The requirements for standing to challenge a final decision by the Board are stated in Code § 62.1-44.29, which provides in relevant part: Any owner aggrieved by, or any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process…”
Town of Fries v. State Water Control Bd., 409 S.E.2d 634 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 22× “14:16 of the Virginia Administrative Process Act (“VAPA”) provides the appellants with a right of judicial review in addition to that provided for in Code § 62.1-44.29; and (2) whether the appellants lacked standing under the applicable provisions of the State Water Control Law…”
May Dep't Stores Co. v. Commonwealth, 513 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 18× “Code § 62.1-44.29 (art. 5). The cited code sections all relate to the Board’s authority to issue certificates allowing the discharge of certain waste products and the right of “[a]ny owner aggrieved by, or any person who has participated .”
Comm. Ex Rel. State Water Control Bd. v. Cnty. Utils. Corp., 12 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20892 (Va. 1982). · cites it 6× “Code §62.1-44.29, under which this proceeding was brought, is available to any “owner aggrieved by a final decision of the Board” which directly affects his interests.”
Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. State Water Control Bd., 628 S.E.2d 63 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 19× “In its twenty-five page petition, CBF alleged that it meets the legal standing standards required for obtaining judicial review [of the permit] under Va.Code Ann. § 62.1-44.29. The CBF has suffered and will continue to suffer actual and/or imminent injury and represents members…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.29(1)(1992) — 1 case
Philip Morris USA v. Chesaoeaje Bay, 643 S.E.2d 219 (Va. 2007). “Specifically, the issue presented in these appeals is whether the organization has representational and individual standing to request judicial review to challenge the issuance of the permit pursuant to the provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29. BACKGROUND Philip Morris USA Inc.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.29(i) — 1 case
State Water Control Bd. v. Crutchfield, 578 S.E.2d 762 (Va. 2003). “The requirements for standing to challenge a final decision by the Board are stated in Code § 62.1-44.29, which provides in relevant part: Any owner aggrieved by, or any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.29(ii) — 2 cases
Philip Morris USA v. Chesaoeaje Bay, 643 S.E.2d 219 (Va. 2007). “Specifically, the issue presented in these appeals is whether the organization has representational and individual standing to request judicial review to challenge the issuance of the permit pursuant to the provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29. BACKGROUND Philip Morris USA Inc.”
State Water Control Bd. v. Crutchfield, 578 S.E.2d 762 (Va. 2003). “The requirements for standing to challenge a final decision by the Board are stated in Code § 62.1-44.29, which provides in relevant part: Any owner aggrieved by, or any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.29(iii) — 3 cases
Philip Morris USA v. Chesaoeaje Bay, 643 S.E.2d 219 (Va. 2007). “Specifically, the issue presented in these appeals is whether the organization has representational and individual standing to request judicial review to challenge the issuance of the permit pursuant to the provisions of Code § 62.1-44.29. BACKGROUND Philip Morris USA Inc.”
State Water Control Bd. v. Crutchfield, 578 S.E.2d 762 (Va. 2003). “The requirements for standing to challenge a final decision by the Board are stated in Code § 62.1-44.29, which provides in relevant part: Any owner aggrieved by, or any person who has participated, in person or by submittal of written comments, in the public comment process…”
Layla H. by her friend Maria Hussainzadah v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
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.