Opinion ID: 2514012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the case is justiciable and sihd has standing

Text: The Commissioners argue that under I.C. § 67-5270, only a person aggrieved by final agency action can bring an action for judicial review. To be aggrieved, substantial rights of the appellant [must] have been prejudiced. The Commissioners maintain that SIHD has had none of its rights prejudiced and is not a person for purposes of judicial action. The question of dissolution is also a political question decided by voters. The questions raised are subject to judicial determination. See Gumprecht v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 104 Idaho 615, 661 P.2d 1214 (1983), in which this Court heard a case challenging the appropriateness of the procedure used to amend the local zoning laws; see also Weldon v. Bonner County Tax Coalition, 124 Idaho 31, 855 P.2d 868 (1993). SIHD clearly has standing. The possible effect upon SIHD is apparent. It may be destroyed.