Title: Citizens for Smyrna-Clayton First et al. v. Town of Smyrna et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CITIZENS FOR SMYRNA-CLAYTON
§
FIRST, SHARON L. DURHAM,
§
MICHAEL H. McGRATH,
§
§
No. 14, 2003     
Plaintiffs Below,
§
Appellants,
§
Court Below: Court of Chancery
§
of the State of Delaware in and 
            v.
§
for New Castle County
§
TOWN OF SMYRNA, a political sub-
§
C.A. No. 1545
division, of the State of Delaware, and
§
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P, a 
§
Delaware limited partnership, WAL-MART §
STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 
§
CARTER & BURGESS, INC., a foreign
§
corporation, ELIZABETH M. BROWN
§
and EDWARD C. BROWN, JR., as
§
nominal Defendants,
§
§
Defendants Below,
§
Appellees.
§
Submitted: March 4, 2003
Decided:
March 18, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 18th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and
their contentions at oral argument, it appears to the Court that:
-2-
(1) This is an expedited proceeding brought in the Court of Chancery for an
injunction that would prevent Wal-Mart, Inc. from building a distribution center on
a parcel of land recently zoned for industrial use in the town of Smyrna.
(2) The plaintiffs are citizens and a citizens group challenging the zoning
process of the Mayor and Council of the Town of Smyrna that resulted in approval of
a land development plan permitting the Wal-Mart project.
(3) The matter was heard on the facts and law in an expedited injunction
proceeding by the Master in Chancery who rendered a comprehensive Report to the
Chancellor dated December 24, 2002.  The Master's report  was reviewed on the
merits by the Chancellor also on an expedited basis.  The Master's Report and the
Chancellor's ruling of December 31, 2002, demonstrate a thorough consideration of
the issues.  
(4) The Master recommended denial of the injunction and the Chancellor
denied the injunction, accepting the Master's Report and Recommendation on all
issues and adopting his Report except for the Master's recommendation not to consider
the zoning issues.  The Chancellor did consider the zoning issues and found in a well-
reasoned analysis that no zoning violations had occurred.
(5) The Chancellor entered an order denying the injunction and affirmed that
ruling in a letter opinion dated January 10, 2003, upon reargument.  This appeal
-3-
followed.  Briefing and argument in this Court were also expedited at the request of
the parties.
(6) Plaintiffs claim that they have standing to assert their claims challenging
the decision of the Town of Smyrna.  Defendants deny that they have standing.  The
Court of Chancery assumed, without deciding, that they have standing and decided
this matter on the merits.  We have adopted this approach as well.  
(7) In our view, the entire matter, including the expedited scheduling
decisions, were handled properly and professionally by the Master and the Chancellor.
(8) The scheduling and other procedural decisions of the Court of Chancery
were not an abuse of discretion and did not violate due process.
(9) The findings and conclusions of the Court of Chancery that plaintiffs failed
to establish the necessary criteria for injunctive relief were not an abuse of discretion.
(10) The decision of the Court of Chancery on the merits was supported by the
record and is correct as a matter of law.
(11) We have concluded that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be
affirmed on the basis of the Master's Report of December 24, 2002, the Chancellor's
decision of December 31, 2002, the Chancellor's decision on reargument of January
10, 2003.
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of
Chancery is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
  Chief Justice