MENU
      component-social-facebook_share_api-v2-01

      SC Supreme Court dismisses cruise line case

      CHARLESTON, S.C.(WCIV) -- A nuisance lawsuit against Carnival Cruise Lines filed by severalCharleston neighborhoods has been dismissed by the state's highest court.{}

      Thesuit was filed more than two years ago by the Historic AnsonboroughNeighborhood Association, Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, the CoastalConservation League, and Preservation Society of Charleston.

      "Today's opinionissued by the South Carolina Supreme Court is great news for the citizens ofCharleston.{} The decision of the court confirms our long held belief inthe validity and propriety of cruise operations at Union Pier.{} It isregrettable that so much time and resources had to be devoted to litigating theissue," said Charleston Mayor Joe RIley. "Itis now time to move forward. We will continue our work with the State Portsauthority to improve cruise and other operations at the Port of Charleston tosolidify its status as a world class maritime facility."

      "Inthis case brought in our original jurisdiction, several citizens groups filedsuit against a cruise ship operator alleging nuisance and zoning claims andseeking an injunction. We hold these groups lack standing and dismiss,"write Justice Hearn in the court's opinion.

      Hearnsaid that to win the case, the neighborhoods had to show three things: thatthere was an injury to them, that there is a connection between the injury andthe protested conduct, and that a decision by the court for the neighborhoodswould help alleviate the injury.{}

      Hearnwrote that instead of focusing on wrongs to the neighborhood associations, theyfocused on "grievances suffered by the public as a whole."

      "Inshort, these allegations are simply complaints about inconveniences sufferedbroadly by all persons residing in or passing through the City of Charlestonand therefore, Plaintiffs fail to establish the first element ofstanding," the Court's opinion reads.

      Legalfees in the case totaled{}$25,666.05 for the City.{}

      Toread the full opinion,{}click here.

      {}

      FOLLOW US ON TWITTER