Laserfiche WebLink
December 10, 2010 Volume 41 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin <br />the individual. In such a case, the individual citizen can not prevail on <br />tort claims against the municipality or municipal officials. <br />Here, the court found that the Ordinance was "not enacted to <br />provide a benefit to [BSA]." "Instead, the [O]rdinance was enacted <br />to benefit the municipality as a whole." Thus, the court concluded, <br />"[BSA] failed to establish a duty owed to them by the City or Nix, <br />in his official capacity." Therefore, under the doctrine of substantive <br />immunity, BSA's claim for damages arising out of the City and Nix's <br />interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance failed. <br />See also: - Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So. 2d 385 (Ala. 1982). <br />See also: Hilliard v. City of Huntsville, 585 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1991). <br />See also: Payne v. Shelby County Com'n, 12 So. 3d 71 (Ala. Civ. <br />App. 2008). <br />See also: Tutwiler Drug Co., Inc. v. City of Birmingham, 418 So. 2d <br />102 (Ala. 1982). <br />Case Note: BSA had also brought a claim against Nix, alleg- <br />ing "intentional interference" with BSA's business relations. The <br />court found that claim failed because BSA had failed to present <br />"substantial evidence of damages" flowing from that allegation. <br />Standing— Adjacent landowners appeal <br />township decision to approve subdivision and <br />land development application <br />Township says landowners lack standing to bring appeal <br />because they failed to first appear in proceedings below <br />Citation: Miravich v. Township of Exeter, 2010 WL 4242559 (Pa. <br />Commw. Ct. 2010) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (10/28/10) —This case addressed whether ap- <br />peals from a subdivision and land use decision require procedural <br />standing (i.e., a requirement that the appealing party first appear be- <br />fore the Board of Supervisors) in order to bring the appeal. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2005, the Metropolitan Development <br />Group ( "MDG ") submitted to the Township an application for Pre- <br />liminary Subdivision and Land Development approval of a proposed <br />34 -lot development. The application was considered at a number of <br />meetings of the Township Planning Commission. It was also con- <br />4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />