In the case Rider-Durst v. Conotton Valley Union Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2021-Ohio-3587, the Seventh District Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in dismissing a taxpayer’s action against a school board (“Board”) for lack of standing.
Here, four taxpayers filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order, and other injunctive relief against the Board after the Board awarded a construction contract for demolition of an existing press box and construction of a new press box at the school’s football stadium. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on lack of standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the taxpayers did not have standing to bring the complaint when the taxpayers relied solely on their general taxpayer status, and when the taxpayers did not have special interest in which their own property rights were being put in jeopardy by the demolition. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the action.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.