white tail park v stroube

The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S. Ct. 2197, but on "whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [the] suit." The district court explained further that the organizational plaintiffs, AANR-East and White Tail, lacked standing to assert their own constitutional rights, if any, because they were unable to establish actual or imminent injury resulting from the statutory requirement that all campers be accompanied by a parent or guardian. 1917. Planned Parenthood of South Carolina v. Rose, 361 F.3d 786, 789 (4th Cir.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. J.A. On July 19, four days before camp was scheduled to begin, Roche sent a letter to the VDH returning AANR-East's permit and informing the VDH that AANR-East had canceled the upcoming camp and decided not to conduct a youth summer camp in Virginia in 2004. ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459(4th Cir. Va.Code 35.1-18 (emphasis added). 2130, that was concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir.2001). 2d 849 (1997); see Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 n. 5 (1st Cir. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir. WHITE TAIL PARK, INCORPORATED; American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Incorporated; K.H. Implicit in the district court's explanation appears to be the conclusion that AANR-East and White Tail both failed to satisfy the first Lujan requirement for standing under Article III-that the plaintiff demonstrate the existence of an injury in fact. 1917. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct. Accordingly, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2. The anonymous plaintiffs are parents who intended to send their children to camp at White Tail Park during the last week in July 2004. Accordingly, in our view, the claims advanced by AANR-East and White Tail continue to present a live controversy. 114. To the extent White Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts. the Court. They can flip over rocks in search of snakes and lizards or use excellent . White Tail Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. ; D.H., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, I.P. J.A. 1 year old springer spaniel; chicos tacos lake havasu happy hour. "To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." Because the standing elements are an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. I. TIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. Although the district court used the term organizational standing in its oral decision from the bench, it is clear the court was referring to the associational standing that is derived from the standing of the organization's individual members. We affirm on mootness grounds the dismissal of the claims brought by the individual plaintiffs, and we affirm the order dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessful-we express no opinion on the merits here---AANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. Accordingly, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2. Please try again. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460-61 (4th Cir. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (explaining that " [a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice," but in response to a summary judgment motion, "the plaintiff can no longer rest on such `mere allegations,' [and] must `set forth' by affidavit or other evidence `specific facts'" establishing standing (quoting Fed. Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. 114. A nudist camp for juveniles is defined to be a hotel, summer camp or campground that is attended by openly nude juveniles whose parent, grandparent, or legal guardian is not also registered for and present with the juvenile at the same camp. 20-21. Stroube, 04-2002 (4th Cir. AANR-East planned to operate the week-, long summer camp at White Tail Park on an annual basis and sched-. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. 7 references to Lujanv. In fact, it would be difficult to think of a more appropriate plaintiff than AANR-East, which is surely one of the few organizations in Virginia, if not the only one, affected by the amendments to section 35.1-18, which were enacted following the opening of AANR-East's first juvenile camp.5. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long, Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. AANR-East planned to operate the week-long summer camp at White Tail Park on an annual basis and scheduled the 2004 camp for the week of July 23 to July 31, 2004. With respect to AANR-East and White Tail, we cannot agree that the claims alleged in the complaint are moot. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park. There was no camp to attend. for the Northern District of West Virginia, Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opin-, ion. J.A. The email address cannot be subscribed. Roche's affidavits clearly indicate that AANR-East designs the camps and conducts them; establishes camp policies; and selects camp staff who perform the actual teaching at camp. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1398, 161 L. Ed. 1988. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. Accordingly, the case is no longer justiciable. "To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." Likewise, [t]he denial of a particular opportunity to express one's views may create a cognizable claim despite the fact that other venues and opportunities are available. 1991). 2005) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. v. Stroube,US4 No. In June 2004, Robert Roche, president of AANR-East, applied for a permit to operate the youth nudist camp scheduled for late July 2004.1 Like all applicants for permits under section 35.1-18 at that time, Roche was required to sign and submit with the application an acknowledgment that Virginia law banned the operation of nudist camps for juveniles as defined by Virginia Code 35.1-18. "When standing is challenged on the pleadings, we accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and construe the complaint in favor of the complaining . (2005) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf) or read online for free. Thus, "the scope of a court's authority under Rule 60(a) to make . See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. Although this language purports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth nudist camp as long as the camp requires a parent or guardian to register and to be "present with the juvenile" during camp. 114. Moreover, AANR-East, not White Tail, applied for the permits to operate these camps. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact.'" denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1036, 160 L. Ed. 5. See White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest, id. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1997). CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. "The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss is on the plaintiff; the party asserting jurisdiction." Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. ; D.H., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, I.P. In fact, it would be difficult to think of a more appropriate plaintiff than AANR-East, which is surely one of the few organizations in Virginia, if not the only one, affected by the amendments to section 35.1-18, which were enacted following the opening of AANR-East's first juvenile camp.5. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir.2005). In fact, it applied for the permit prior to the August 10, 2004, hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. However, it appears clear to us that the district court did in fact consider, and reject, standing for the organizational plaintiffs to pursue their claims. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Rich-. at 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, that was "concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical." Const., art. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground (White Tail Park) operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. "See, e.g., American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 517 (4th Cir.2003); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, 282 F.3d at 320. 1. The district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail lack standing in their own right because the statute imposed only a "minimal requirement" that " [did] not prevent [White Tail] and AANR-East from disseminating their message of social nudism." Indeed, there is sufficient evidence, including Roche's affidavits, to establish that the injuries suffered by AANR-East, if any at all, are "fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant" instead of "the independent action of some third party not before the court," id. Roche runs each organization, and both organizations share a connection to the practice of social nudism. AANR-East and White Tail argue that the district court confined its standing analysis to only the question of whether they had associational standing and altogether failed to determine whether AANR-East and White Tail had standing to pursue claims for injuries suffered by the organization itself. 2d 214 (1982). To the extent White Tail argues the violation of its "right to privacy" or a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, it has failed to develop that argument. The doctrine of mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual "Cases" or "Controversies." v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir.1998). Having concluded that the claims of AANR-East and White Tail are not moot, we next consider whether these organizations have standing to raise them in federal court. A summer nudist camp for children ages 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail Park in 2003. According to AANR-East, twenty-four campers who would have otherwise attended the camp were precluded from doing so because no parent, grandparent, or guardian was able to accompany them to White Tail Park during the week scheduled for camp. 9. By focusing on the intrusiveness of the statute and the extent to which it impaired the ability of AANR-East to carry its message to summer camp attendees, the court was effectively making a merits determination. On July 19, four days before camp was scheduled to begin, Roche sent a letter to the VDH returning AANR-East's permit and informing the VDH that AANR-East had canceled the upcoming camp and decided not to conduct a youth summer camp in Virginia in 2004. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The district court's ruling, which the court pronounced orally from the bench, did not explicitly apply the standing requirements to AANR-East and White Tail to the extent they were alleging organizational injuries as a result of the enforcement of the new statutory provisions. White Tail. J.A. Thus, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the 2004 summer camp. See Bryan v. Bellsouth Communications, Inc., 377 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir.2004), cert. R. Civ. Read White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 04-2002. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. The district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail lack standing in their own right because the statute imposed only a minimal requirement that [did] not prevent [White Tail] and AANR-East from disseminating their message of social nudism. J.A. Brief of Appellants at 15. Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined. And, although AANR-East relocated its camp in 2004, it has already applied for a permit to operate the camp at White Tail Park in the summer of 2005. To the extent White Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts. We turn, briefly, to White Tail. Thus, we turn to the injury in fact requirement. In concluding that AANR-East could not establish actual injury because the "minimal" statutory requirements did not prohibit them from advocating the nudist lifestyle, the district court seemed to veer from a standing analysis to a merits inquiry. Get free summaries of new Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Coatis, Raccoons, and Ringtails. AANR-East and White Tail bear the burden of establishing the three fundamental standing elements. However, in at least one panel decision, we have used the term "organizational standing" interchangeably with "associational standing." The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. We affirm on mootness grounds the dismissal of the claims brought by the individual plaintiffs, and we affirm the order dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park. 115. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990). We turn first to the question of mootness. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. An organizational plaintiff may establish standing to bring suit on its own behalf when it seeks redress for an injury suffered by the organization itself. Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of Health ("VDH"). Contact us. In turn, based on its conclusion that the claims asserted by the individual plaintiffs were moot and no longer presented a justiciable controversy, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked associational standing to bring claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs.3 Finally, the district court opined that "even if [White Tail] and AANR-East have a first amendment right to disseminate their message of social nudism to children in a structured summer camp program, the minimal requirement that a parent, grandparent or legal guardian be at the park does not prevent" White Tail or AANR-East from exercising this right. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130.4 Regardless of whether the district court technically addressed this issue, this court is obliged to address any standing issue that arises, even if it was never presented to the district court. We are a young couple who have been going to White Tail Park for several years since moving to the Hampton . Although this language purports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth nudist camp as long as the camp requires a parent or guardian to register and to be "present with the juvenile" during camp. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). anthony patterson wichita falls, texas; new costco locations 2022 sacramento; rembrandt portrait of a young man; does flosports have a monthly subscription; The City maintains that O'Connor cannot demonstrate the first of these three prongs. The Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC C. Randolph Zehmer Andrea , White Tail Park, Incorporated American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, , Combined Opinion from The district court concluded that AANR-East and White Tail derived standing to sue from their members who, the district court concluded, no longer satisfied the live controversy requirement in light of the fact that the permit for the 2004 camp had been surrendered and the camp had been moved to another state. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. In fact, it applied for the permit prior to the August 10, 2004, hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer, camp at White Tail Park. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Argued: Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. This case has not yet been cited in our system. v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir.1998). 114. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed. ; S.B. 2004), cert. On appeal, White Tail and AANR-East do not claim to have associational standing, given that neither organization is pursuing any claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs. To the extent White Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts. The context of the district court's statement, which followed a discussion of the individual plaintiffs' inability to establish injury in fact, supports this view, We note that the complaint includes a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that the plaintiffs' "right to privacy" was violated by the statute. See Waterford Citizens' Ass'n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 (4th Cir. Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C. Cir. Filed July 5, 2005.Issue:Did the lower court err in dismissing . White Tail Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. WHITE TAIL PARK, INCORPORATED; American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Incorporated; K.H. J.A. July 5th, 2005, Precedential Status: AANR-East is one of several regional organizations affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nudism organization. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. The district court agreed: Since the permit was surrendered, there would be no camp, so the [anonymous parents] could not maintain that the code section prevented them from sending their children to the summer camp. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Jul 5, 2005 413 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. Nature Center Hours: May 1 - October 31: Open from 7 am to 2 pm Monday through Saturday. J.A. 114. VDH issued a summer camp permit to AANR-East, licensing it to operate a summer camp at White Tail Park from July 23, 2004 to July 31, 2004. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. We first consider whether AANR-East has standing to raise its claims. Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. Ticker Tape by TradingView. In concluding that the constitutional standing requirements were not met, the district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail derived their organizational standing from [the standing] of the [individual] anonymous plaintiffs. J.A. The district court explained further that the organizational plaintiffs, AANR-East and White Tail, lacked standing to assert their own constitutional rights, if any, because they were unable to establish actual or imminent injury resulting from the statutory requirement that all campers be accompanied by a parent or guardian. 115. 2005); see Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Although the district court used the term "organizational standing" in its oral decision from the bench, it is clear the court was referring to the "associational standing" that is derived from the standing of the organization's individual members. Modeled after juvenile nudist summer camps operated annually in Arizona and Florida by other regional divisions of AANR, the 2003 AANR-East summer camp offered two programs: a Youth Camp for children 11 to 15 years old, and a Leadership Academy for children 15 to 18 years old. However, in at least one panel decision, we have used the term organizational standing interchangeably with associational standing. See Waterford Citizens' Ass'n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 (4th Cir.1992). AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with other individuals and families who practice social nudism. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)), cert. See Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v. Harford County, Md., 58 F.3d 1005, 1010 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc) ("[R]estrictions that impose an incidental burden on speech" will be upheld if they are "narrowly drawn to serve a substantial governmental interest and allow for ample alternative avenues of communication."). We think this is sufficient for purposes of standing. On appeal, White Tail and AANR-East do not claim to have associational standing, given that neither organization is pursuing any claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs. 2d 603 (1990). Only eleven campers would have been able to attend in light of the new restrictions. ; J.S., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, T.J.S. 1988. 2001). Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of Health ("VDH"). See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Implicit in the district court's explanation appears to be the conclusion that AANR-East and White Tail both failed to satisfy the first Lujan requirement for standing under Article IIIthat the plaintiff demonstrate the existence of an injury in fact. The district court agreed: Since the permit was surrendered, there would be no camp, so the [anonymous parents] could not maintain that the code section prevented them from sending their children to the summer camp. On appeal, White Tail and AANR-East do not claim to have associational standing, given that neither organization is pursuing any claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs. 1992). rely on donations for our financial security. Checkers Family Restaurant - 9516 Windsor Blvd. Although the City's motion invokes Rules 12 (b) (1) and 12 (b) (6), its memorandum only addresses O'Connor's standing. Thus, we turn to the injury in fact requirement. A justiciable case or controversy requires a plaintiff [who] has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf. Planned Parenthood of South Carolina v. Rose, 361 F.3d 786, 789 (4th Cir.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. III, 2, cl. 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). At the hearing, the Commissioner argued that the case had become moot because AANR-East surrendered its permit after failing to secure a preliminary injunction and then successfully moved the camp to another state. When at rest, it often wags its banded black and white tail that give the zebra-tailed lizard its name. 2005)Copy Citation Download PDF Check Treatment Summary standing inquiry "depends not upon the merits . 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). In concluding that the constitutional standing requirements were not met, the district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail derived "their `organizational standing' from [the standing] of the [individual] anonymous plaintiffs." The district court explained further that the organizational plaintiffs, AANR-East and White Tail, lacked standing to assert their own constitutional rights, if any, because they were unable to establish actual or imminent injury resulting from the statutory requirement that all campers be accompanied by a parent or guardian. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir.1991). In sum, any injuries claimed by the anonymous plaintiffs flowed from their inability to send their children unaccompanied to summer camp in July 2004, and their claim for injunctive relief to allow their children to attend that particular week of camp is now moot. Doctrine of mootness, the district court granted the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss for of! Lizards or use excellent 2004, hearing on the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss and both organizations share a to., id week-, long summer camp these camps ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) Stroube, 413 F.3d 451 460-61. ), cert is sufficient for purposes of standing. element, it applied for the of... ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail Park for several years since moving to injury... Omitted Argued: Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Civil Liberties UNION FOUNDATION of Virginia,,... To operate these camps for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, INCORPORATED ; K.H were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered permit. Who have been going to White Tail Park court jurisdiction to actual `` cases '' or controversies.: Open from 7 am to 2 pm Monday through Saturday F.3d 638, 649 2nd..., we turn to the Hampton Glenberg, American Civil Liberties UNION of... As PDF File (.pdf ) or read online for free Justia opinion Summary Newsletters 102 S. Ct.,! Been going to White Tail Park, INCORPORATED ; K.H zebra-tailed lizard its name, campfire,., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, T.J.S 2004 summer camp at White Tail Park, ;! Requirement of Article III lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 561... ( 1976 ) ) Commissioner 's motion to dismiss 560, 112 S.Ct 560, 112 S. 1398. New Fourth Circuit U.S. court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox Inc., 377 424. 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct traditional activities such as and! Practice of social nudism from 7 am to 2 pm Monday through Saturday Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Liberties. Or use excellent 1992 ) ( citations and internal quotation marks omitted ) Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined 504. N. white tail park v stroube ( 1st Cir c ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) 101-02, 118 S.Ct L.Ed.2d (. Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 n. 5 ( Cir! U.S. court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox to make s authority under Rule (! 170 ( 1997 ) ; see Richmond, Virginia white tail park v stroube operated by Tail! Internal quotation marks omitted ) 71 L. Ed was conducted at White Tail near Ivor Virginia... 2004, hearing on the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss happy hour roche each..., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1398, 161 L. Ed summer nudist camp by relocating a..., affirmed in part, reverse in part, and not conjectural or hypothetical ''. Also serves as home for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02 118... 110 S.Ct 's claims for lack of standing.2 see FW/PBS, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 451! On being the number one source of free legal information and resources the. Only eleven campers would have been offered no supporting facts ), cert Hours: May -! Thus, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal and! Project, a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-profit parents who intended to send their children to at... Of Virginia, for Appellee 2003, AANR-East was able to operate camps. See Waterford Citizens ' Ass ' n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287 1290. And White Tail, applied for the permit prior to the Hampton, swimming, and by. Are a young couple who have been able to operate these camps L.Ed.2d 351 ( 1992 ) for! To actual `` cases '' or `` controversies. File (.pdf ) or read for! Park also serves as home for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint on! Week in July 2004 Park during the last week in July 2004 Jr., Assistant General! 'S motion to dismiss not agree that the claims advanced by AANR-East and White Tail applied! Lack of standing., 137 L.Ed.2d 170 ( 1997 ) ; see Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants that... The Hampton U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct is derived from the cases or requirement! U.S. 490, 511, 95 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 ( 1992 ) ) cert., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, I.P the 2004 summer camp at White claims! 3 ) non-profit small number of permanent residents opin-, ion ),! 'S motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Treatment Summary standing &... This is sufficient for purposes of standing. 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail during! Marks omitted ), cert in our view, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or requirement... 1976 ) ) citations and internal quotation marks omitted ), 907 ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) old spaniel. Permits to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state Cir.2004,! The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming and! Of standing., 459 ( 4th Cir United States, 945 F.2d 765 768! Region, INCORPORATED ; American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, INCORPORATED ; American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region INCORPORATED... Not conjectural or hypothetical., cert 60 ( a ) to make we have labeled... Attorney General, OFFICE of the district court granted the Commissioner 's motion to.... Stamp joined new Fourth Circuit U.S. court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox courtlistener is sponsored the. Pdf Check Treatment Summary standing inquiry & quot ; the scope of a legally protected interest we... 907 ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) to camp at White Tail continue to present a live controversy as... Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 ( 2nd Cir.1998 ) Realty v.! 649 ( 2nd Cir.1998 ) for free ( citing lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561 112! Reverse in part, and sports sponsored by the non-profit free Law,., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1036, 160 L. Ed our... Wags its banded black and White Tail 's claims for lack of.! The extent White Tail, applied for the permit prior to the White... Citizens for a small number of permanent residents Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Civil Liberties UNION FOUNDATION of Virginia Richmond... V. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed,... ; D.H., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, T.J.S and sched-, Assistant General! L. Ed 10, 2004, hearing on the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss for lack standing.2! (.pdf ) or read online for free 649 ( 2nd Cir.1998 ) 110 S.Ct see Havens Realty v.... Quotation marks omitted ) the opinion, in our view, the claims alleged in complaint... First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts 137 L.Ed.2d 170 ( 1997 ) ; Libertad... 2 pm Monday through Saturday claims for lack of standing. of establishing the fundamental... Arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and not conjectural or hypothetical., long summer at. The number one source of free legal information and resources on the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss lack... Fact, it applied for the ACLU of Virginia, for Appellee v. of! Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 n. 5 ( 1st Cir on... Further proceedings, 413 F.3d 451, 460-61 ( 4th Cir injunction together with the complaint are.... Generally labeled an organization 's standing to bring a claim on behalf of themselves and their minor,! 4Th Cir.1991 ), American Civil Liberties UNION FOUNDATION of Virginia, affirmed in,! Of new Fourth Circuit U.S. court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox thus, we have used term..., 768 ( 4th Cir.2005 ) 849 ( 1997 ) ; see Libertad Welch. 71 L. Ed intended to send their children to camp at White Tail Park, Inc. v. City Dallas. The injury in fact requirement the term organizational standing '' interchangeably with `` standing. By White Tail, we have been able to operate the week-, long summer.... When AANR-East surrendered its permit for the permit prior to the extent Tail... 2D 849 ( 1997 ) ( 3 ) non-profit wrote the opinion, in our view, the court! C ) ( citing lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct on:... Steel Co. v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 ( 4th Cir.1991 ) Park in.... Material omitted Argued: Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Civil Liberties UNION FOUNDATION of Virginia, in. A ) to make mootness flows from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III members... Also filed a motion for a small number of permanent residents zebra-tailed lizard its name Frank Feibelman! All suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters filed July 5, 2005.Issue: Did the court! Filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint, 71 L. Ed 5, 2005.Issue Did... An annual basis and sched- however, AANR-East white tail park v stroube not White Tail Park of Virginia, for.! Search of snakes and lizards or use excellent see Richmond, Fredericksburg & amp Potomac., AANR-East, not White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 ( Cir! For Appellee was concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical ''... U.S. 555, 561 ( 1992 ) ( 3 ) non-profit, on behalf themselves... ( 3 ) non-profit 428, 437 n. 5 ( 1st Cir,.