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

1,068 chars

*217Although an injury in fact need not be a particularly substantial one to support our jurisdiction over a petition for review, the injury must be one which petitioners have suffered or are in immediate danger of sustaining. District of Columbia v. Waiters, supra, at 338, citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2325, 33 L.Ed.2d 154, reh. denied, 409 U.S. 901, 93 S.Ct. 94, 34 L.Ed.2d 165 (1972); see Public Citizen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 184 U.S. App.D.C. 133, 139-40, 565 F.2d 708, 714-15 (1977). Petitioners must allege an injury or aggrievement which is real, perceptible, concrete, specific and immediate, rather than one that is conjectural, hypothetical or speculative. Public Citizen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., supra, at 140, 565 F.2d at 715, citing United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 689, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), California Bankers Association v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 69 (1974), and Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108-10, 89 S.Ct. 956, 959-60, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969).

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text