finding no special injury in part because there was nothing “to establish that they have suffered any pecuniary loss.”
How later courts described this case
- finding no special injury in part because there was nothing “to establish that they have suffered any pecuniary loss.”
- stating that a party bringing a common or public nuisance action must show some special and peculiar damage
- “[Sjection 4452 gives a municipality, and only a municipality, the authority to enforce land use regulations. Accordingly, only municipalities may bring an action for violations of such regulations.”
- when the Legislature deems it "essential that a private party have a right of action, it has expressly created oneil
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CALKINS, J.,
with whom DANA and ALEXANDER, JJ., join,
concurring.
[¶ 41] I concur in the result, but I write separately because I think that it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether 17 M.R.S.A. § 2701 or 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4302 provides a cause of action for the relief sought by the Charltons. Even assuming that there is a cause of action, there is no question that the Charltons must demonstrate that they have been damaged in order to obtain relief. The trial court found that the Charltons were not damaged, and that finding is supported by the evidence. That finding alone disposes of this case. The discussion of the availability of a cause of action is unnecessary to a disposition of this appeal.