Cases Dealing With ''Legal Standing'' In Texas
In Austin Neighborhoods Council, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of City of Austin, the appealing party did not establish standing because it made no attempt whatever to show how it was injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public. 644 S.W.2d 560, 563 (Tex. App.-Austin 1982, writ ref'd, n. r.e.).
In Texans to Save the Capitol, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of City of Austin, standing was challenged, and the appellants presented uncontested evidence to the Board of their aggrievement. 647 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. App.-Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The court of appeals noted that the evidence showed some unique harm to appellants, but it "at best is very weak." Id.
The court does not set out the evidence that was presented.
In Scott v. Board of Adjustment, a case involving standing to appeal a board's decision to a district court, the supreme court stated, "Where the statute requires that the person be interested, affected, or aggrieved...the plaintiff must allege and show how he has been injured or damaged other than as a member of the general public..." 405 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Tex. 1966).
However, the damage or injury need not reach the level of a legal injury. See Austin Neighborhoods Council, 644 S.W.2d at 563.
In another context, the supreme court stated, "The terms 'aggrieved' and 'affected' are synonymous and both relate to the requirement that a person show a 'justiciable interest."' Hooks v. Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 611 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. 1981).
The issue in Hooks was whether the Hookses had standing to bring appeal to the district court from an order of the Department of Water Resources.
The court held that the Hookses had standing to appeal the Department's order and noted that the hearing examiner designated the Hookses as parties "who may be affected by the action that may be taken as a result of the hearing." Id.