Court Opinion

ID: 9884752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:10:51.771867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:55.241436
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bristow, specially concurring: Although I concur in the ultimate result reached by the majority of the court in affirming the judgment below, I cannot concur in the view taken by the majority that plaintiff failed to prove damages to give him standing as a proper party plaintiff. The holdings of this court in 222 East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Board of Appeals, 10 Ill.2d 130, and 10 Ill.2d 132, merely require a party seeking review to both allege and prove that the decision would adversely affect such party in a special manner peculiar to such party and different in degree than that suffered by the public in general. Nowhere do such cases require an allegation and proof of pecuniary damage in a positive dollar-and-cents amount. The direct testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses as set forth in the majority opinion, and the defense stipulation that seventeen other witnesses would testify to the same effect, provides ample basis to establish special damage to plaintiff peculiar to it and different from that suffered by the general public. The degree of damage required to be shown in such cases as this is comparable to that required in injunction suits against a public nuisance (Hoyt v. McLaughlin, 250 Ill. 442; Dunne v. County of Rock Island, 283 Ill. 628; Espenscheid v. Bauer, 235 Ill. 172), and is in no way comparable to the proof required in suits in personam for monetary damages. There is a rank difference in the facts found in the cases relied upon by the majority and those appearing in this record. To find any similarity, one’s mental plow must be clear out of focus. Mr. Justice Schaefer is also of the opinion that there was a sufficient showing of special damages to call for a decision on the merits.