Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)

Citation
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Parent Document
Lee v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review, 423 A.2d 210 (1980)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1980-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,061 chars
.By evaluating injury in fact only with reference to whether petitioners were, or were not, being supplied with utilities-a focus on the merits of the controversy-my colleagues glide over the fact that there are actually two separate questions of injury presented: whether petitioners were (1) “aggrieved” by the Board’s denial of their Motion for Leave to Intervene, and (2) “aggrieved” by the merits of the Board’s decision that B.G.M. is no longer required to provide gas and water. Courts, as well as scholars, have recognized that denial of a petition to intervene in an agency’s proceeding creates, in itself, an aggrievement entitling the petitioners to judicial review of that denial, without regard to whether that petitioner would have standing to seek review of the merits of the agency action. See NLRB v. Majestic Weaving Co., Inc., 344 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir.1965); 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 22.08 at 241-43 (1958); Shapiro, *220Some Thoughts on Intervention before Courts, Agencies and Arbitrators, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 721, 728 (1968).