Opinion ID: 1574558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Green has standing to maintain this action on appeal.

Text: ¶ 26. Standing is a legal question; thus the decision of the Commission on this matter is not entitled to the same level of deference as cited supra. The applicable standard of review is as follows: The order shall not be vacated or set aside either in whole or in part, except for errors of law, unless the court finds that the order of the commission is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the commission, or violates constitutional rights. Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-67(4) (Rev.2001) (emphasis added). ¶ 27. Cleary cites rule 11B(1) of the Commission's rules, which states that a complainant must affirmatively show ... a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter. ... Code Miss. R. XX-XXX-XXX (2008). Green cites caselaw requiring the assertion of a colorable interest... or ... an adverse effect. ... City of Belmont v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n, 860 So.2d 289, 296 (Miss.2003); State v. Quitman County, 807 So.2d 401, 405 (Miss.2001) (emphasis added). Both the Commission and the chancery court held that Green was without standing. The Commission found that Green had shown no justiciable interest. The chancellor used a two-step analysis, finding that it was clear that Green had an interest, as a decision of the court could affect an interest Green has in his property. However, the chancellor found Green to be without standing because he had alleged no injury or threat of an injury. While it may be true that Green cited no injury, that does not equate to a lack of standing. He claims injury from the fact that he would have expenses in connecting to a central sewer system, although there are no current plans to construct or extend the sewer into Green's area. Green also claims injury from Cleary's plans to take ownership of IOWDSs, but that claim is moot, as the ordinance no longer includes such a clause. ¶ 28. Despite the lack of showing of an injury, Green could still have standing. This Court has stated, It is well settled that `Mississippi's standing requirements are quite liberal.' Quitman County, 807 So.2d at 405 (quoting Dunn v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 708 So.2d 67, 70 (Miss. 1998)). This liberality is due to the lack of cases and controversies language in Mississippi's Constitution as compared to Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Quitman County, 807 So.2d at 405. Therefore, this Court has been `more permissive in granting standing to parties who seek review of governmental actions.' Id. (quoting Van Slyke v. Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning, 613 So.2d 872, 875 (Miss.1993)). In USPCI of Mississippi v. State ex rel. McGowan, (588 So.2d 783 (Miss.1997), this Court held that the `standing' requirement ... allow[s] a private citizen to challenge governmental actions contrary to law where the actions would otherwise escape challenge. ... Id. at 789. ¶ 29. The test for standing in Mississippi is as follows: Parties may sue or intervene where they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise authorized by law. City of Belmont, 860 So.2d at 296 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). See also City of Starkville v. 4-County Elec. Power Ass'n, 909 So.2d 1094, 1104 (Miss.2005). The chancellor found correctly that Green had an interest in the litigation. As Green is a resident of the certificated area, a decision by the Commission may affect an interest he has in his property. However, in his apparent attempt to resurrect Green I claims, he pleaded no injury, loss, harm, or the threat of same. His 2004 complaint would be subject to an analysis akin to that of Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and therefore, was subject to dismissal under MPSC Rule 11B(3). There being no new claim offered, we cannot say there is an inconsistency with the Commission's rule, which cannot supersede the requirements of ... the pertinent rules of law. Capital Elec. Power Ass'n v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 240 Miss. 139, 153, 125 So.2d 739, 744 (1961).