white tail park v stroube

by

white tail park v stroube

Coatis, Raccoons, and Ringtails. Argued: Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. WHITE TAIL PARK, INCORPORATED; American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Incorporated; K.H. The parties, like the district court, focused primarily on this particular element of standing. v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir.1998). our Backup, Combined Opinion from When a defendant raises standing as the basis for a motion under Rule 12(b) (1) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Commissioner did in this case, the district court "may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. 2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Chesapeake B & M, Inc. v. Harford County, Md., 58 F.3d 1005, 1010 (4th Cir. 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. 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. Only eleven campers would have been able to attend in light of the new restrictions. Whitetail Dr, Ivor, VA 23866 (757) 859-6123 Suggest an Edit. 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. Roche also serves as president of White Tail. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. With respect to AANR-East and White Tail, we cannot agree that the claims alleged in the complaint are moot. 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. 1398, 161 L.Ed.2d 190 (2005). 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. Thus, we turn to the injury in fact requirement. The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. The email address cannot be subscribed. 2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ; D.H., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, I.P. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S.Ct. 1992). With respect to an injury-in-fact, "the first and foremost of standing's three elements," Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), an organization that . Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined. J.A. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. It is the place for the discriminating readers who have a deep affection and love for excellent writing and those with an appreciation for the power of words to kindle imagination, ignite passion and light up your thoughts. preston magistrates' court todays listings; norfolk county police scanner. As the application process was proceeding, AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents, suing anonymously on behalf of themselves and their children, filed this action against Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the VDH. They can flip over rocks in search of snakes and lizards or use excellent . 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. This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that AANR-East and White Tail brought certain claims, as discussed below, in their own right and not derivative of or on behalf of their members. The camp also included an educational component designed to teach the values associated with social nudism through topics such as "Nudity and the Law," "Overcoming the Clothing Experience," "Puberty Rights Versus Puberty Wrongs," and "Nudism and Faith." Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir.2002). 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." ; S.B. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1969). Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessfulwe express no opinion on the merits hereAANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. Checkers Family Restaurant - 9516 Windsor Blvd. Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. We first consider whether AANR-East has standing to raise its claims. 115. ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459(4th Cir. Roche enclosed a press release issued by AANR-East indicating that, in light of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, AANR-East was forced to cancel camp because the new Virginia statutory requirements "place [d] an undue burden on too many parents who had planned to send their children" to the camp. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement, a plaintiff must provide evidence to support the conclusion that: (1) "the plaintiff suffered an injury in factan invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"; (2) "there [is] a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of"; and (3) "it [is] likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990). J.A. American, Fast Food . ; T.S. The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. ; T.S. and M.S., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert B. STROUBE, in his official capacity as Virginia State Health Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee. 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. 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. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. See Va.Code 35.1-18. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. 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. Roche runs each organization, and both organizations share a connection to the practice of social nudism. 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. 2d 210 (1998). Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, William E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy State Solicitor General, Courtney M. Malveaux, Associate State Solicitor General, D. Nelson Daniel, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. 1998). You can explore additional available newsletters here. The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. 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. 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). 103. weaning a toddler cold turkey; abc polish newspaper . Upon those two bases, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the claims of AANR-East and White Tail for lack of standing. 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. 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. Roche enclosed a press release issued by AANR-East indicating that, in light of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, AANR-East was forced to cancel camp because the new Virginia statutory requirements "place[d] an undue burden on too many parents who had planned to send their children" to the camp. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 57. TIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia. J.A. 5. Read White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 04-2002 READ The district court erred when it dismissed plaintiff's First Amendment claim, challenging a Virginia law which requires a parent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp, for lack of standing. The anonymous plaintiffs are parents who intended to send their children to camp at White Tail Park during the last week in July 2004. See Va.Code 35.1-18. 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. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessfulwe express no opinion on the merits hereAANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. The doctrine of mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual "Cases" or "Controversies." 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. 114. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that AANR-East and White Tail brought certain claims, as discussed below, in their own right and not derivative of or on behalf of their members. Docket: 04-2002, 0% found this document useful, Mark this document as useful, 0% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not useful, Save White Tail Park v. Stroube, 4th Cir. We filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Richmond onbehalf of White Tail Park, the American Association for Nude Recreation-East, and three families that wish to send their children to the summer camp arguing that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and right to direct the care and upbringing of ones children, as well as the First Amendment right to free association. AANR-East and White Tail bear the burden of establishing the three fundamental standing elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. One of the purposes of the camp, according to AANR-East, is to "educate nudist youth and inculcate them with the values and traditions that are unique to the culture and history of the American social nudist movement." We think this is sufficient for purposes of standing. Filed July 5, 2005.Issue:Did the lower court err in dismissing . Nearby Restaurants. 16. 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. The amended statute requires a, parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who, The Board shall not issue a license to the owner or lessee, of any hotel, summer camp or campground in this Common-, wealth that maintains, or conducts as any part of its activi-, ties, a nudist camp for juveniles. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). 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. When at rest, it often wags its banded black and white tail that give the zebra-tailed lizard its name. 115. 2130, that was "concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical." 114. A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest. We turn first to the question of mootness. Argued: Rebecca Kim Glenberg, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. However, in at least one panel decision, we have used the term "organizational standing" interchangeably with "associational standing." November 1 - April 30: Open from 8 am to 4 pm daily. To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement, a plaintiff must provide evidence to support the conclusion that: (1) the plaintiff suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there [is] a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it [is] likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. All rights reserved. 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. This behavior is likely used to draw attention away from the vulnerable head to the break-away tail. J.A. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. Appellate Information Argued 03/16/2005 Decided 07/05/2005 III, 2, cl. ; J.B., on behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B. There was no camp to attend. Upon those two bases, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the claims of AANR-East and White Tail for lack of standing. With VTail's WINNER EVERY TIME Technology, your entire inventory sells at the same pace assuring 100% sell through. These rulings are not at issue on appeal. 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 [individual] plaintiffs no longer satisfy the case or controversy requirement. Instead, AANR-East and White Tail contend that they have asserted injuries to the organizations themselves that are separate and distinct from the injuries alleged by the individual plaintiffs on behalf of their children and themselves. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. 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. 103. Read White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 04-2002. Roche signed the acknowledgment and also orally assured Gary Hagy, Director of the Food and Environmental Services Division of the VDH, that AANR-East intended to comply with the new restrictions imposed by the General Assembly. 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. 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. The email address cannot be subscribed. All rights reserved. As the application process was proceeding, AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents, suing anonymously on behalf of themselves and their children, filed this action against Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the VDH. 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. 1988. 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.). 115. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. "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. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), and that any injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision, id. "See, e.g., American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 517 (4th Cir. 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. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 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. AANR-East is one of several regional organizations affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nudism organization. Plaintiffs requested an order declaring section 35.1-18 of the Virginia Code unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 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. reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. J.A. 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. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent White Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts. 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."). Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the 2004 summer camp. It prefers hard soils with few plants. The district court concluded, in turn, that if the individual plaintiffs no longer satisfied the case or controversy requirement, then neither does White Tail or AANR-East because their organizational standing derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs. J.A. 114. A district court's dismissal for lack of standing, and therefore lack of jurisdiction, is a legal ruling that we review de novo. The case is White Tail Park v. Robert B. Stroube. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). These rulings are not at issue on appeal. The [individual] plaintiffs no longer satisfy the case or controversy requirement. Decision, July 5, 2005- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Opening Brief- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Appellant's Reply Brief- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Complaint- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Right to Send Children to Nudist Summer Camp, Support these community organizations this Giving Tuesday, ACLUVA Statement on Decision in Anderson v. Clarke and Bowles, 10 Tips for Becoming an Effective Advocate. missing their complaint for lack of standing. 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). Prior to the scheduled start of AANR-East's 2004 youth camp, the Virginia General Assembly amended the statute governing the licensing of summer camps specifically to address youth nudist camps. On July 5, 2005, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court and reinstated the case. Join us, returned Virginians, and loved ones of people who are still incarcerated on Tuesday, Jan. 17, for our Lobby Day to advocate for the Second Look legislation! Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing. A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Jul 5, 2005 413 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined. White Tail v. Stoube Right to Send Children to Nudist Summer Camp, White Tail v. Stoube During the 2004 session, Virginia General Assembly has passed a bill that prohibits the licensing of "nudist camps for juveniles," which is defined as a camp attended by juveniles without a parent, grandparent or legal guardian in attendance. The district court concluded, in turn, that if the individual plaintiffs no longer satisfied the case or controversy requirement, then "neither does White Tail or AANR-East because their `organizational standing' derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs." Const., art. . v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir.1998). Body length: 2 - 4 in (6.3 - 10.1 cm) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. As the application process was proceeding, AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents, suing anonymously on behalf of themselves and their children, filed this action against Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the VDH. 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." Please try again. 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. 56(e))). John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Prior to the scheduled start of AANR-East's 2004 youth camp, the Virginia General Assembly amended the statute governing the licensing of summer camps specifically to address youth nudist camps. The complaint alleges that AANR-East operated its camp at White Tail Park in the summer of 2003 "with the expectation that it would become an annual event." 04-2002. During the 2004 session, Virginia General Assembly has passed a bill that prohibits the licensing of nudist camps for juveniles, which is defined as a camp attended by juveniles without a parent, grandparent or legal guardian in attendance. 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. denied, 543 U.S. 1119, 125 S.Ct. 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). For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order dismissing the First Amendment claim brought by AANR-East for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Rich-. 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. 57. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Get Directions. 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. The third couple was able to arrange their schedule so that they could accompany their children, but sought to enjoin the application of the amended statute because they believed the camp "experience would be more valuable if [the children] were able to spend the week away from us." It has a long snout with a flexible nose which it uses to root in the soil for grubs and other invertebrates. J.A. In view of this ruling, the district court concluded that the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the anonymous plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to use pseudonyms, and plaintiffs' motion for a protective order were moot. 5. rely on donations for our financial security. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S. Ct. 2312, 138 L. Ed. 3. AANR-East and White Tail bear the burden of establishing the three fundamental standing elements. 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. July 5th, 2005, Precedential Status: 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order dismissing the First Amendment claim brought by AANR-East for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings. J.A. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long, Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. J.A. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. White Tail Park. 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. General Motors Cost Leadership Strategy, Le Rosey Menu, Priority Housing Waiting List Qld, Balseros Cubanos Que Llegaron Ayer, Articles W