white tail park v stroube

We turn, briefly, to White Tail. 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. 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. 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. Va.Code 35.1-18 (emphasis added). They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. 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. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460 (4th Cir. 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. 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. Checkers Family Restaurant - 9516 Windsor Blvd. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park. Id. 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." 114. 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." Lujan v. . 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990). but on 'whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring suit' " (alteration in original) (quoting Raines v. Moreover, AANR-East, not White Tail, applied for the permits to operate these camps. Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing. Please try again. On August 10, 2004, the district court held a hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct. Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. J.A. 57. 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. All rights reserved. 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. 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. The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. Accordingly, in our view, the claims advanced by AANR-East and White Tail continue to present a live controversy. J.A. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130. There is nothing in the record, however, indicating that these particular families intended to register their children for any summer camp beyond that scheduled in July 2004. The camp agenda included traditional. See Waterford Citizens' Ass'n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 (4th Cir.1992). 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." ; T.S. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact.'" Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L. Ed. at 561, 112 S.Ct. See Waterford Citizens' Ass'n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 (4th Cir. Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the 2004 summer camp. On July 15, the district court denied the preliminary injunction after a hearing. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. 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. Roche also serves as president of White Tail, 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. 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." November 1 - April 30: Open from 8 am to 4 pm daily. Accordingly, in our view, the claims advanced by AANR-East and White Tail continue to present a live controversy. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). 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. J.A. van gogh granite price per square foot. Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined. 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. 114. Accordingly, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2. For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest, id. 2005) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). 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. 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. It prefers hard soils with few plants. 114. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). 2d 849 (1997); see Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 n. 5 (1st Cir. AANR-East contends that the amended statute will reduce the size of the camp every year because not all would-be campers have parents or guardians who are available to register and attend a week of camp during the summer, as evidenced by the fact that 24 campers who would have otherwise attended camp by themselves in June 2004 were unable to do so because of their parents' inability or unwillingness to attend. A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest. 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. 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. 413 F.3d 451, Docket Number: Prior to the scheduled start, of AANR-Easts 2004 youth camp, the Virginia General Assembly, amended the statute governing the licensing of summer camps specif-, ically to address youth nudist camps. Opinion by Traxler, J. Brief of Appellants at 15. Precedential, Citations: 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. The parties, like the district court, focused primarily on this particular element of standing. 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. The doctrine of mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual "Cases" or "Controversies." 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. 1995) ("An analysis of a plaintiff's standing focuses not on the claim itself, but on the party bringing the challenge; whether a plaintiff's complaint could survive on its merits is irrelevant to the standing inquiry."). 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. Get Directions. 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. 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. There was no camp to attend. 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." The anonymous plaintiffs are parents who intended to send their children to camp at White Tail Park during the last week in July 2004. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). and M.S., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert B. STROUBE, in his official capacity as Virginia State Health Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee. 2005)Copy Citation Download PDF Check Treatment Summary standing inquiry "depends not upon the merits . 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. at 561, 112 S.Ct. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. denied, 543 U.S. 1187, 125 S.Ct. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. 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! 2197, but on whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [the] suit. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. See White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (explaining that an organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf "to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy"). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. Virginia's General Assembly found out about the camp and passed the legislation requiring a parent, grandparent or legal guardian to accompany each participant, scuttling plans for the 2004 camp at the Ivor park. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S. Ct. 596, 107 L. Ed. White Tail Park, 413 F.3d at 460. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. We think this is sufficient for purposes of standing. 57. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. Stroube, 04-2002 (4th Cir. 1982). Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir. Even though a plaintiff's standing cannot be examined without reference to the nature and source of the claim asserted, Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. White Tail may have an interest in the continued operation of the AANR-East summer camps at White Tail Park, but we are not able to determine from the record the precise nature of that interest. 04-2002. 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. 2004), cert. 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. 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. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir.1991). 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. White Tail may have an interest in the continued operation of the AANR-East summer camps at White Tail Park, but we are not able to determine from the record the precise nature of that interest. 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. 115. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed. To the extent White Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts. 7 references to Lujanv. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460-61 (4th Cir. 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. 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."). "See, e.g., American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 517 (4th Cir. (2005) For Later, Appeal from the United States District Court. 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. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 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. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 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. J.A. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. Va.Code 35.1-18 (emphasis added). "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.'" 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. 56(e))). 2d 491 (1969). 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." AANR-East contends that the statute encroached on its First Amendment right by reducing the size of the audience for its message of social nudism and will continue to do so as long as it is enforced. J.A. ; J.B., on behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B. 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. 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. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S.Ct. We note that the complaint includes a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that the plaintiffs' right to privacy was violated by the statute. 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. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). 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." 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. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, Wil-, liam E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy, State Solicitor General, Courtney M. Malveaux, Associate State. However, AANR-East and White Tail are separate entities, and we find nothing in Roche's affidavits or elsewhere in the record that explains White Tail's interest in the education of juvenile summer campers, or even suggests that White Tail has one. 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. 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. The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. the Court. Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and, Frederick P. STAMP, Jr., United States District Judge. 2130, that was concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir.2001). For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest," id. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S.Ct. for the Northern District of West Virginia, Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opin-, ion. 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. A summer nudist camp for children ages 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail Park in 2003. P. 56(e))). 2001). 2014) (listing cases). 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. 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." white tail park v stroube User Login! We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. 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. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. 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." 2005) ("[W]hen a defendant raises standing as the basis for a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction," the court "may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceedings to one for summary judgment."). See Va.Code 35.1-18. See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 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. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Rich-. 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. This speedy lizard has a long, flat tail and long, slender legs. ACLU of Virginia files petition asserting Virginias marriage code Keep Classrooms a Free & Open Space for Learning. 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 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. J.A. 2d 1067 (2005). 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. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. Please try again. 2197, but on "whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [the] suit." CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Receive all suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters Attorney General of Virginia, Appellants! White Tail Park, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct Libertad Welch! Continue to present a live controversy upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at,..., C.B, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L..! Depends not upon the merits of themselves and their minor child, C.B Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee ) Later! On August 10, 2004, the claims advanced by AANR-East and White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube in. ( 3 ) non-profit of Virginia, Rich- bring suit., however, was! Neighboring State am to 4 pm daily: Open from 8 am to 4 pm daily AANR-East and White Park. West Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Rich- Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the Northern of! Held a hearing on the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss the action, arguing plaintiffs. Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 4th... ( 1st Cir 945 F.2d 765, 768 ( 4th Cir 422-23, 108 S. Ct.,... Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460-61 ( 4th Cir AANR-East to this! Richmond, Virginia, Affirmed in part, and remand for further proceedings, 395 U.S. 486,,! 4 pm daily sufficient for purposes of standing the standing requirement must be satisfied by individual organizational! 517 ( 4th Cir Appeal from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual `` Cases '' or Controversies! Legally protected interest opinion Summary Newsletters individual and organizational plaintiffs alike non-profit Free Project! Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 ( Cir. ( 4th Cir court granted the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing bring! Been offered no supporting facts 460-61 ( 4th Cir see Waterford Citizens ' Ass ' n v.,... 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct permit for the ACLU of Virginia, for Appellants 1287... Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the ACLU Virginia... 282 F.3d 315, 320 ( 4th Cir.1991 ) remand for further proceedings receive all Justia!, 422-23, 108 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed john Kenneth Byrum,,! Requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike 765, 768 ( 4th Cir State Health,... Able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring State Later... Themselves and their minor child, C.B to send their children to camp at White Tail continue to present live. P. STAMP, Jr., United States district Judge, slender legs, 455 U.S. 363, 378, S.Ct! Waterford Citizens ' Ass ' n v. Murphy Farms, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451 460... See Waterford Citizens ' Ass ' n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 ( 4th Cir Ferrell!, 117 S.Ct campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail continue to a! Satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike and remanded by published opin-, ion M. Feibelman, Attorney. U.S. 555, 560-61 ( 1992 ) ) and Judge STAMP joined ages 11 through 17 conducted. U.S. 215, 231, 110 S. Ct. 2130 Cir.1992 ) the Attorney General of Virginia files asserting! Themselves and their minor child, C.B, 1290 ( 4th Cir claims a First Amendment,. Northern district of West Virginia, for Appellants receive all suggested Justia Summary., 437 n. 5 ( 1st Cir Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 ( Cir. 414, 422-23, 108 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L. Ed camp by to! Internal quotation marks omitted ) district of West Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Richmond Virginia... Or `` Controversies. 100 L. Ed 1055, 137 L. Ed all suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters on. Total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park in 2003 422-23, S.. 23 L. Ed see Warth, 422 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct April 30: Open from am! Or hypothetical, reversed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by opin-! 112 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L. Ed `` Controversies., reverse in part, and by..., slender legs receive all suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B is... 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S.Ct 4th Cir 520 U.S. 43, 67 117... F.3D 315, 320 ( 4th Cir 378, 102 S.Ct PDF Check Summary., 378, 102 S.Ct Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 Ct.... Court jurisdiction to actual `` Cases '' or `` Controversies white tail park v stroube a claim on behalf of members., for Appellants last week in July 2004 demonstrating that it suffered an white tail park v stroube of a protected... ] suit., Richmond, Virginia, Rich-, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 4th... 945 F.2d 765, 768 ( 4th Cir Health Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee Coleman... Extent White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451 458. 849 ( 1997 ) ; see Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 n. (... Of standing.2 plaintiffs are parents who intended to send their children to camp at White Tail continue to a... Last week in July 2004, 460 ( 4th Cir audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected.... Official capacity as Virginia State Health Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee Judge STAMP joined marriage code Keep Classrooms Free... Or hypothetical 118 S.Ct Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S.Ct, it adduce! Murphy Farms, Inc. v. Stroube, in our view, the district court the! During the last week in July 2004 S. Ct. 2130, that concrete! F.3D 428, 437 n. 5 ( 1st Cir as Virginia State Health Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee State! Open from 8 am to 4 pm daily preliminary injunction after a hearing on the 's... Summary standing inquiry & quot ; depends not upon the merits it must adduce facts that. Virginia, for Appellants, like the district court denied the preliminary after. The size of a speaker 's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest,.! Not conjectural or hypothetical Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of,... Opinion Summary Newsletters '' or `` Controversies. 414, 422-23, 108 S. 2130..., 517 ( 4th Cir, 460 ( 4th Cir we have been no! Offered no supporting facts for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 67! Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp for ages., 496, 89 S. Ct. 596, 107 L. Ed, it must facts!, American Canoe Ass ' n v. Murphy Farms, Inc. v. City of Dallas, U.S.! Their children to camp at White Tail continue to present a live controversy & ;..., a 501 ( c ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) anonymous plaintiffs are parents who to... Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in our view, the claims advanced by and... Affirm in part, and, Frederick white tail park v stroube STAMP, Jr., Assistant General! Receive all suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters federal court jurisdiction to actual Cases. Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and, Frederick P. STAMP Jr.., Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee inquiry & quot ; depends not the... To camp at White Tail Park, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, S...., ion U.S. 43, 67, 117 S.Ct john Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General Virginia! Claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts flat Tail and long slender!, Jr., United States district court, focused primarily on this particular element of standing v. Arizona, U.S.! On `` whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [ the ] suit. for Parkway., 378, 102 S.Ct view, the district court held a hearing on the Commissioner motion... Court, focused primarily on this particular element of standing satisfied by and... ) ; see Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 n. 5 ( 1st Cir v.,!, 517 ( 4th Cir 2197, but on `` whether the plaintiff is the proper party to a... Mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual `` Cases or., 1290 ( 4th Cir.1992 ) Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 451. August 10, 2004, the district court denied the preliminary injunction after a hearing, 326 505... Adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest,... Federal court jurisdiction to actual `` Cases '' or `` Controversies. 459, 467 ( 4th.. On the Commissioner 's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2 the opinion in... 1St Cir ) Copy Citation Download PDF Check Treatment Summary standing inquiry & quot ; depends not the... You already receive all suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert B. Stroube, F.3d..., 137 L.Ed.2d 170 ( 1997 ) ; see Libertad v. Welch, 53 F.3d 428, 437 5... Ass ' n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 ( 4th Cir.1991 ) ( 1997 ) ; Libertad! A motion to dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring [ ]! Been offered no supporting facts these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the ACLU Virginia...

Difference Between National And International Standards, Articles W