Court Opinion

ID: 9853031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:41:28.520584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.067017
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, Sloan lacks standing to bring this action.
As the majority states, this case presents an issue of great public importance. However, “[t]he mere fact that the issue is one of public importance does not confer upon any citizen or taxpayer the right to invoke per se a judicial determination of the issue.” Crews v. Beattie, 197 S.C. 32, 49, 14 S.E.2d 351, 358 (1941). I agree with the Court of Appeals that the existence of potential plaintiffs with greater interests, while not determinative in all cases, here weighs heavily against finding standing.
The potential plaintiffs with interests greater than Sloan’s are the companies to which the bid was not awarded. Large amounts of money are at stake in bidding competitions, so a losing bidder has a strong incentive to take action if the process appears in violation of the law. That no such bidder is now before the Court does not mean that Sloan automatically has standing. When there exist numerous potential plaintiffs that have been directly and significantly affected, a court should be very reluctant to confer standing upon a member of the general public who can allege no particular harm. Third-party standing is supposed to be the exception, not the rule.
The recent opinions of this Court cited by the majority are distinguishable from the case sub judice. Sloan v. Wilkins, *309362 S.C. 430, 608 S.E.2d 579 (2005); Sloan v. Sanford, 357 S.C. 431, 593 S.E.2d 470 (2004). Neither Wilkins nor Sanford involved potential plaintiffs capable of alleging such direct, distinct harm as that which the losing bidders could allege here.
In my opinion, Sloan lacks standing to bring this action. The Court of Appeals’ decision should be affirmed.