Opinion ID: 1411532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Public Importance Exception

Text: This Court has long recognized the public importance exception to the general standing requirements. [S]tanding is not inflexible and standing may be conferred upon a party when an issue is of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance. Davis v. Richland County Council, 372 S.C. 497, 500, 642 S.E.2d 740, 741 (2007) (citation omitted); see also Baird v. Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 531, 511 S.E.2d 69, 75 (1999) (holding standing existed to challenge an alleged ultra vires act of issuing taxexempt hospital bonds because the act affected profound public interests: public health and public welfare). In cases which fall within the ambit of important public interest, standing will be conferred without requiring the plaintiff to show he has an interest greater than other potential plaintiffs. Davis, 372 S.C. at 500, 642 S.E.2d at 741 (citations omitted). Whether an issue of public importance exists necessitates a cautious balancing of the competing interests presented, as this Court explained: An appropriate balance between the competing policy concerns underlying the issue of standing must be realized. Citizens must be afforded access to the judicial process to address alleged injustices. On the other hand, standing cannot be granted to every individual who has a grievance against a public official. Otherwise, public officials would be subject to numerous lawsuits at the expense of both judicial economy and the freedom from frivolous lawsuits. Sloan v. Sanford, 357 S.C. 431, 434, 593 S.E.2d 470, 472 (2004). The key to the public importance analysis is whether a resolution is needed for future guidance. It is this concept of future guidance that gives meaning to an issue which transcends a purely private matter and rises to the level of public importance. Baird, 333 S.C. at 531, 511 S.E.2d at 75 ([A] court may confer standing upon a party when an issue is of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance.) (citations omitted); Sloan v. Sanford, 357 S.C. at 434, 593 S.E.2d at 472 ([U]nder certain circumstances, standing may be conferred upon a party when an issue is of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance.) (citations omitted). Yet the very nature of the public importance exception to general standing requirements resists a formulaic approach, as each case must turn on the competing policy concerns as we expressed in Sloan v. Sanford . [2] Turning to the case at hand, ATC claims that the matter of zoning is important to the public. Of course zoning is a matter of public importance, but the same may be said of most legislative and executive actions. For a court to relax general standing rules, the matter of importance must, in the context of the case, be inextricably connected to the public need for court resolution for future guidance. There is nothing public about ATC's concern with a competing cell-phone tower. Here, a local government followed proper procedure and rezoned a single piece of property for a narrow purpose and the only complaint comes from a nonadjoining landowner which just happens to be a competitor. ATC's efforts to cloak its zoning challenge as a matter of public importance for the purpose of acquiring standing finds no traction in this record.