You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Mark Realty Inc. v. City of Pawtucket

Citations: 658 A.2d 912; 1995 R.I. LEXIS 165; 1995 WL 347944Docket: No. 94-389

Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; May 26, 1995; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on May 19, 1995, regarding an appeal by Mark Realty Inc. against the city of Pawtucket. The appeal followed a Superior Court ruling that dismissed Mark Realty's complaint, determining that the plaintiff lacked standing and that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The court established that a party must demonstrate injury in fact to establish standing, referencing In re Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion, 627 A.2d 317 (R.I. 1993). The trial justice concluded that Mark Realty failed to prove such injury, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment without addressing the subject matter jurisdiction issue, as the appeal was denied on the standing grounds. Justice Bourcier did not participate in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judicial Review of Standing

Application: The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling based on the standing issue, eliminating the need to address subject matter jurisdiction.

Reasoning: Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment without addressing the subject matter jurisdiction issue, as the appeal was denied on the standing grounds.

Non-Participation of Justices

Application: Justice Bourcier did not participate in the Supreme Court's decision regarding the appeal by Mark Realty Inc.

Reasoning: Justice Bourcier did not participate in the decision.

Standing Requirement in Civil Cases

Application: The court dismissed Mark Realty Inc.'s complaint for lack of standing, affirming that a plaintiff must demonstrate injury in fact to establish standing.

Reasoning: The court established that a party must demonstrate injury in fact to establish standing, referencing In re Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion, 627 A.2d 317 (R.I. 1993).