Opinion
43752 Record No. 780765.
January 12, 1979
Present: All the Justices.
A sight-seeing carrier by boat has no standing to appeal a final order of the State Corporation Commission placing restrictions in a certificate issued to a competitor unless it can show an immediate, pecuniary and substantial interest and that it is aggrieved or injured.
(1) State Corporation Commission — Pleading and Practice — Standing to Appeal from Order — Requirements.
(2) State Corporation Commission — Pleading and Practice — Standing to Appeal from Order — Sight-Seeing Carrier by Boat shows no Interest Injuriously Affected and Lacks Standing.
The State Corporation Commission granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Harbor Tours, Inc. (Tours), a sight-seeing carrier by boat. The certificate restricted Tours to operation over a fixed route. Harbor Cruises, Inc. (Cruises), a protestant before the Commission, appealed on the ground the Commission had no authority to restrict a certificate holder to operation over a fixed route. Tours did not appeal. The question is Cruises' standing to appeal.
1. While an appeal from a judgment of the State Corporation Commission is a matter of right, the appealing party must have standing to prosecute the appeal, showing an immediate pecuniary and substantial interest in the litigation and that he has been aggrieved by the judgment appealed from. He has standing to seek the correction of errors only injuriously affecting him.
2. The restrictions attached to a certificate issued to its competitor do not injure or aggrieve appellant and thus the appellant lacks standing to prosecute the appeal.
Appeal from an order of the State Corporation Commission.
Appeal dismissed.
James E. Bradberry (Moore, Weaver, Moore Bradberry, on brief), for appellant.
Wayne N. Smith for appellees.
Harbor Cruises, Inc. (Cruises), filed an appeal of right from a final order of the State Corporation Commission (Commission) awarding to Harbor Tours, Inc. (Tours), a certificate of public convenience and necessity under Chapter 14.1 of Title 56 of the Code (Code Sections 56-457.1 et seq.) to operate special or charter party service by boat over a fixed route from a point of origin on the Elizabeth River Esplanade in the City of Norfolk. Apparently satisfied with the Commission's order, Tours accepted the certificate as granted. It filed no appeal and has not appeared or filed a brief in this appeal by Cruises.
Cruises, a protestant before the Commission, in its assignments of error, in brief and on oral argument, attempts to challenge the Commission's authority, when issuing such a certificate, to restrict the certificate holder to operation over a fixed route, sailing from and returning to a fixed point of origin. Counsel for the Commission, by motion to dismiss the appeal, has questioned Cruises' standing to raise the issues which it now argues.
Although an appeal from a judgment of the Commission is allowed as a matter of right, an appealing party must have standing to prosecute the appeal; he must show an immediate, pecuniary, and substantial interest in the litigation, and not a remote or indirect interest. He must also show that he has been aggrieved by the judgment or decree appealed from. He does not have standing to assert purely abstract questions, however interesting and important they may be, but has standing only to seek the correction of errors injuriously affecting him. Insurance Association v. Commonwealth, 201 Va. 249, 110 S.E.2d 223 (1959); Nicholas v. Lawrence, 161 Va. 589, 593, 171 S.E. 673, 674 (1933).
Failing to perceive how Cruises could be aggrieved or injured by what it says are unduly restrictive conditions attached to the certificate issued to one of its competitors, we hold that Cruises has no standing to raise the issues which it argues. We sustain, therefore, the Commission's motion and dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.