Opinion ID: 1895909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing of Appellants

Text: In limine there is the question of the standing of the appellants to maintain this action which must be disposed of before we consider the merits of the case. We think the challenge to their standing is without merit and that this issue is controlled by Davis v. State, 183 Md. 385, 37 A.2d 880 (1944). In Davis, the Court was presented with a proceeding brought by a medical doctor under the Declaratory Judgment Act, requesting a declaration as to the validity of Ch. 600 of the Acts of 1943, which regulated advertising by physicians and surgeons. The doctor claimed that the restrictions on advertising imposed by the Act adversely affected his practice and had materially reduced his income. Although he was unsuccessful in his attack on the constitutionality of the Act, nonetheless, the Court recognized his standing as a complaint, stating:    if a person is directly affected by a statute, there is no reason why he should not be permitted to obtain a judicial declaration that the statute is unconstitutional. It is true that a court of equity has power to restrain the enforcement of a void statute or ordinance at the suit of a person injuriously affected. [citing cases.] But in this case complainant is affected by the Act of 1943 and he is entitled to apply for a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Act, rather than run the risk of being subjected to criminal prosecution.   . 183 Md. 389. In the case at bar the uncontradicted evidence shows that the establishment of the territorial restrictions by the statutes have had a severe adverse economic effect on the appellants, as well as on all commercial crabbers and oystermen of Somerset County. We have no difficulty in concluding that their interests are peculiarly affected in that they have sustained a special damage, and consequently have the requisite standing to sue. Richmark Realty v. Whittlif, 226 Md. 273, 282, 173 A.2d 196 (1961). Cf. Pitts v. State Board of Examiners, 222 Md. 224, 226, 160 A.2d 200 (1960); Dvorine v. Castelberg Corp., 170 Md. 661, 668, 185 A. 562 (1936).