Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen of Newton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• standing decisions “have not explicitly addressed the issue of the amount or nature of the defendant’s evidence required” to rebut presumption
• suggesting allegations of traffic increases, if supported by credible evidence, are sufficient to show standing in non-commercial context
• referring specifically to the presumption in behalf of “abutters to abutters”
• injury must be “special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community”
• even when positing legitimate concerns, plaintiff must offer more than conjecture and hypothesis to be aggrieved person
• injury claimed by plaintiff must be “special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).