McGuire v. Zoning Board Type of court National - higher court Date May 14, 1999 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of American Samoa, Appellate Division Seat of court Pago Pago Judge Kruse, Chief Justice; Richmond, Associate Justice; Tua`Olo, Chief Associate Judge; Atiulagi, Associate Judge Reference number AP No. 19-98 Language English Subject Legal questions Keyword Access-to-justice Abstract The appellants, McGuire and the Tafuna Residents Association, sought judicial review od a variance granted by the Zoning Board, which is an administrative branch of the American Samoa Government. The variance allowed the construction of a commercial warehouse in Tafuna after a hearing, a “special hearing” and a reconsideration hearing. The appellant, McGuire, appeared both in his personal capacity and later as a representative for the Tafuna Residents Association. Nonetheless, the variance was upheld and the appellants resolved to appeal the case. Even though the Tafuna Residents Association had not technically exhausted its administrative remedies as the first hearing was only attended by MaGuire in his personal capacity, the court allowed it to remain a part to the case due to its participation in the following hearings and proceedings. The court also noted that all relevant administrative procedures have taken place and a final decision been rendered. Next, the court moved on to determined whether the individual and the organisation had standing to seek judicial review of the administrative decision. The court reiterated the two-part federal test requiring the appellants to demonstrate that they had suffered an injury in fact and were arguable within the statute’s zone of interest. The court was of the opinion that the petition contained several allegations of injuries suffered by the appellants such as the drain on a limited water supply and a threat to pedestrian traffic. The court also stated that there were more possible injuries that had not been included in the petition, but could still satisfy the requirement. Thus, the appellant had fulfilled the injury in fact criterion. The zoning statutes are moreover designed to protect the rights of neighbouring landowners. Hence, the appellants’ injuries are within the zone of interests that the statutes sought to protect and they had standing to bring the action. Full text McGuire v. Zoning Board.pdf