Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)

Citation: Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Parent Document: Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1980-11-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2000618/lee-v-district-of-columbia-boar... ↗

Full Text

1,310 chars

Neither petitioners nor BGM briefed or argued the question of standing before us. Nevertheless, our jurisdiction is limited to that which Congress has bestowed upon us (pursuant to its Article I power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court”). See District of Columbia v. Walters, D.C.App., 319 A.2d 332, 338 n.13, appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1065, 95 S.Ct. 650, 42 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974). Congress has limited our authority to review local administrative actions; under the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act (DCAPA), we may entertain only petitions brought by “[a]ny person suffering a legal wrong, or adversely affected or aggrieved, by an order or decision of the May- or or an agency in a contested case .. . . ” D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-1510. Because Congress has so restricted the class of persons who may appeal an administrative decision to this court, our jurisdiction over the subject matter on review is contingent upon petitioners’ right to prosecute this appeal. Therefore, we feel obliged to raise the issue of petitioners’ standing sua sponte. See *216United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 197, 76 S.Ct. 763, 767, 100 L.Ed. 1081 (1956) (“Jurisdiction depends upon standing to seek review,” and such questions may be raised by the court.)

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text