History
  • No items yet
midpage
Carnival Corp. v. Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Ass'n
753 S.E.2d 846
S.C.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Four Charleston nonprofit citizen groups (Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association, Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, Coastal Conservation League, Preservation Society of Charleston) sued Carnival seeking injunctive relief alleging unlawful "home-porting" of the cruise ship Fantasy at the Union Pier Terminal caused traffic, noise, air pollution, visual impacts, and threatened the Old and Historic District’s National Register status.
  • Complaint asserted ten claims: seven zoning/ordinance claims (zoning use, height, view corridors, sign, noise), a public nuisance claim, a private nuisance claim, and a claim under the South Carolina Pollution Control Act.
  • Defendants (Carnival, State Ports Authority, City of Charleston) moved to dismiss for lack of standing and on merits including preemption and inapplicability of ordinances; the case was taken in the Court’s original jurisdiction and assigned to a referee.
  • The referee recommended dismissal of the ordinance and Pollution Control Act claims but allowed nuisance claims to proceed; the Court dismissed noise, sign, and Pollution Control Act claims and ordered briefing on standing, preemption, and zoning applicability.
  • The Court held Plaintiffs lack standing because they alleged only generalized public grievances (traffic, pollution, noise, obstructed views) and failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury to themselves or their members; associational standing and the statutory neighbor-standing provision (S.C. Code § 6-29-950) did not apply.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Standing: whether Plaintiffs have injury-in-fact Plaintiffs claim traffic, noise, pollution, visual harm, and loss of enjoyment constitute concrete injuries to organizations and members Harms alleged are generalized public grievances, not particularized injuries; statutory neighbor standing not shown Plaintiffs lack standing; dismissal granted
Associational standing: whether organizations’ members suffered particularized injury Organizations allege member harm from environmental, traffic, visual impacts Members’ harms are not alleged as personal/individual; associational test not met Associational standing not established
Statutory zoning standing (S.C. Code §6-29-950) Plaintiffs invoke neighbor/adjacent-owner standing under the statute Plaintiffs did not allege they are adjacent/neigbor property owners or specially damaged §6-29-950 inapplicable; does not confer standing
Public-importance exception to standing Plaintiffs argue matter is of public importance warranting waiver of standing Defendants say exception shouldn’t apply; other parties could bring claims Exception not applied; insufficient public-importance justification

Key Cases Cited

  • Sea Pines Ass’n for the Prot. of Wildlife v. S.C. Dep’t of Natural Res., 345 S.C. 594 (associational standing and injury-in-fact framework)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (generalized grievances insufficient for standing)
  • Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (associational standing test)
  • Beaufort Realty Co. v. Beaufort Cnty., 346 S.C. 298 (application of associational standing test)
  • Brown v. Hendricks, 211 S.C. 395 (private actions to abate public nuisance generally not allowed absent special injury)
  • Overcash v. S.C. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 S.C. 569 (special injury requirement for private public-nuisance suits)
  • Bowlin v. George, 239 S.C. 429 (special character requirement for special injury)
  • Connor Holdings, LLC v. Cousins, 378 S.C. 81 (tenant lacks standing as adjacent property owner under similar ordinance language)
  • Davis v. Richland Cnty. Council, 372 S.C. 497 (public-importance exception to standing explained)
  • ATC South, Inc. v. Charleston Cnty., 380 S.C. 191 (public-importance exception factors)
  • Sloan v. Sanford, 357 S.C. 431 (policy tradeoffs underlying standing and public-importance exception)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Carnival Corp. v. Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Ass'n
Court Name: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Date Published: Jan 22, 2014
Citation: 753 S.E.2d 846
Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2011-197486; No. 27355
Court Abbreviation: S.C.