709 S.E.2d 150
Va.2011Background
- VMRC approved a stormwater outfall pipeline project in state-owned bottomlands off 61st Street, Virginia Beach, with a 48-inch pipe 940 feet long, buried 10 feet below mean low-water, to discharge stormwater; VMRC hearing occurred May 27, 2008, with residents opposing it on environmental and need grounds and VMRC extended project to 2000 feet as a condition of approval.
- Residents alleged VMRC decisions were adverse and objectionable, and sought judicial review under Code § 28.2-1205(F) by appealing to the circuit court.
- Circuit Court dismissed the Residents’ petition for appeal for failure to plead that they were “aggrieved” under Code § 28.2-1205(F); Court of Appeals later reversed, holding Rule 2A:4 did not require standing allegations and remanded for an evidentiary standing hearing.
- Supreme Court of Virginia granted review to address whether petition for appeal must plead standing, and held the circuit court’s dismissal was proper for lack of aggrieved status, reinstating the circuit court judgment.
- Record Nos. 100034, 100043; VMRC and City appealed, Residents cross-appealed; Court of Appeals’ standing holding was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether residents are “aggrieved” to appeal VMRC decisions. | Residents: aggrieved under Code § 28.2-1205(F). | VMRC/City: no aggrieved status; petition lacked direct injury. | Residents not aggrieved; petition insufficient to show standing. |
| Whether Rule 2A:4(b) suffices to sustain the petition regardless of standing. | Rule 2A:4(b) requires only specified pleadings. | Standing required; Rule 2A:4 cannot substitute for standing. | Rule 2A:4(b) cannot cure lack of standing; petition insufficient. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly remanded for an evidentiary standing hearing. | Remand appropriate to develop standing. | Remand unnecessary where pleadings show no aggrieved status. | Remand reversed; affirm circuit court’s dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 273 Va. 564, 643 S.E.2d 219 (2007) (standing and pleading requirements for agency review)
- Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 366, 541 S.E.2d 920 (2001) (pleading sufficiency and standing in agency challenges)
- Barber v. VistaRMS, Inc., 272 Va. 319, 634 S.E.2d 706 (2006) (pleadings determine standing)
- Keepe v. Shell Oil Co., 220 Va. 587, 260 S.E.2d 722 (1979) (standing requires direct interest)
- Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 181 S.E. 521 (1935) (pleadings essential to claim or right)
- Ted Lansing Supply Co. v. Royal Aluminum & Const. Corp., 221 Va. 1139, 277 S.E.2d 228 (1981) (pleadings and proper relief must be pleaded)
- Virginia Beach Beautification Comm'n v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 231 Va. 415, 344 S.E.2d 899 (1986) (aggrieved standard for standing in local review)
- Nicholas v. Lawrence, 161 Va. 589, 171 S.E. 673 (1933) (aggrieved party with direct interest)
- Glisson v. Loxley, 235 Va. 62, 366 S.E.2d 68 (1988) (demurrer standard for agency decisions)