Opinion ID: 2499424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Town's Standing to Seek TRO

Text: [¶ 46] OSA asserts that the Town did not have, or even allege, a tangible interest in this matter sufficient to confer standing to bring its Petition, and that the proper plaintiff in this action would have been a parent or guardian of one of the potentially impacted children. We disagree. [¶ 47] Standing is a legal concept designed to determine whether a party is sufficiently affected to insure that the court is presented with a justiciable controversy. In re Guardianship of Parkhurst, 2010 WY 155, ¶ 10, 243 P.3d 961, 965 (Wyo.2010) (quoting In re Adoption of CF, 2005 WY 118, ¶ 39, 120 P.3d 992, 1004-05 (Wyo.2005)). This Court has described the standing doctrine and its requirements as follows: The doctrine of standing is a jurisprudential rule of jurisdictional magnitude. At its most elementary level, the standing doctrine holds that a decision-making body should refrain from considering issues in which the litigants have little or no interest in vigorously advocating. Accordingly, the doctrine of standing focuses upon whether a litigant is properly situated to assert an issue for judicial or quasi-judicial determination. A litigant is said to have standing when he has a `personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.' This personal stake requirement has been described in Wyoming as a `tangible interest' at stake. The tangible interest requirement guarantees that a litigant is sufficiently interested in a case to present a justiciable controversy. Parkhurst, ¶ 10, 243 P.3d at 965 (quoting CF, ¶ 39, 120 P.3d at 1004-05). [¶ 48] The Town filed its Petition out of concern for the welfare of approximately two-hundred Boy Scouts aged seven to fourteen. Government has long been recognized as having a compelling interest in the well being of its youth. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 U.S. 115, 126, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 2836, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989); Ginsberg v. State of New York, 390 U.S. 629, 638-39, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1280, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968). This interest of the Town is expressly recognized by its statutory authority. By statute, a town may sue or be sued, and it may [r]egulate, prevent or suppress riots, disturbances, disorderly assemblies or parades, or any other conduct which disturbs or jeopardizes the public health, safety, peace or morality, in any public or private place. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-1-103(a)(xviii) (LexisNexis 2011). [¶ 49] We conclude that the Town's asserted interest in protecting its youth gave it a sufficient stake in the outcome of these proceedings to allow it standing to bring its Petition.