stating that “[wjhere the statute requires that the person be interested, affected, or aggrieved, or (in the absence of a statute) where the common law rule requiring the showing of particular injury or damage is controlling, the plaintiff must allege and show how he has been injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public in order to enjoin the actions of a governmental body”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[wjhere the statute requires that the person be interested, affected, or aggrieved, or (in the absence of a statute) where the common law rule requiring the showing of particular injury or damage is controlling, the plaintiff must allege and show how he has been injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public in order to enjoin the actions of a governmental body”
- holding that “[w]ithin constitutional bounds, the Legislature may grant a right to a citizen or to a taxpayer to bring an action against a public body or a right of review on behalf of the public without proof of particular or pecuniary damage peculiar to the person bringing the suit.”
- applying the "general rule" to taxpayers who brought a suit against the city and board of adjustment to restrain the maintenance of a large hotel sign authorized by the board as a variance under the city zoning ordinance
- recognizing plaintiff must plead injury or wrong as required by statute to establish statutory standing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION
GRIFFIN, Justice.
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case. Courts are set up for the redress of wrong and to establish rights and not for the purpose of promoting lawsuits.