Opinion ID: 2597341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standing pursuant to NRS 268.668

Text: By its plain language, NRS 268.668 confers standing upon  any person ... claiming to be adversely affected by an annexation. [3] (Emphases added.) To determine who is implicated by NRS 268.668's any person language, we turn to this court's jurisprudence regarding the fundamental standing principles for judicial review and the evolution of those principles as they pertain to land-use decisions and annexations. This court has a `long history of requiring an actual justiciable controversy as a predicate to judicial relief.' Stockmeier v. State, Dep't of Corrections, 122 Nev. 385, 393, 135 P.3d 220, 225 (2006) (quoting Doe v. Bryan, 102 Nev. 523, 525, 728 P.2d 443, 444 (1986)), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. ___, ___ n. 6, 181 P.3d 670, 672 n. 6 (2008). In instances where we have found that the Legislature has provided citizens with certain statutory rights, we have examined the language of the statute itself to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to sue. Id. at 393, 135 P.3d at 226. We have determined that [t]o do otherwise would be to bar the people of Nevada from seeking recourse in state courts whenever the Legislature has provided statutory rights that are broader than constitutional standing would allow. Id. at 393-94, 135 P.3d at 226. We had occasion to apply the principle of statutory standing in Hantges v. City of Henderson, 121 Nev. 319, 322-23, 113 P.3d 848, 850 (2005). In Hantges, this court determined whether citizens who were not property owners of the subject land had standing to challenge an agency's findings on a redevelopment plan. Id. at 322, 113 P.3d at 850. The statute at issue, NRS 279.609, provided for actions questioning the validity of an agency's findings or determinations regarding redevelopment plans. Id. We concluded that while the statute did not expressly state who could contest redevelopment plans, it served a protective purpose and, therefore, conferred standing to citizens to challenge agency decisions with regard to redevelopment plans. Id. at 322-23, 113 P.3d at 850. In so doing, we noted that the decision was consistent with our prior rulings that citizens have standing to challenge land-use decisions. Id. at 323, 113 P.3d at 850 (citing City of Reno v. Goldwater, 92 Nev. 698, 700, 558 P.2d 532, 533 (1976) (observing that the standing of taxpayers and residents living in close proximity to subject land was beyond question)). Although decided in the context of redevelopment plans, our decision in Hantges is instructive with regard to whether NRS 268.668 confers standing upon citizens to challenge annexation decisions. In the tradition of our long-standing jurisprudence, we first look at the language of the statute itself to determine if it confers statutory rights that are broader than constitutional standing would allow. NRS 268.668 confers rights that are broader than those conferred by constitutional standing because it states that any person or city claiming to be adversely affected by an annexation decision can challenge it. We determine that Cold Springs, a group of landowners and residents who live in close proximity to the subject land, falls within NRS 268.668's any person language. In making this determination, we extend our holding in Hantges, which granted citizens who were not property owners standing to challenge redevelopment plans. Here, we hold that citizens who are not property owners of the subject land may challenge land-annexation decisions pursuant to NRS 268.668. However, whereas in Hantges the standing issue was resolved once we decided who could challenge the validity of an agency's findings as to a redevelopment plan, here there is a second step that must be resolved because of NRS 268.668's language. We determine that the statute's claiming to be adversely affected language adds a required showing in order for a party to have standing to challenge a land annexation.