No Harm, No Foul - Petitioners Claiming Procedural Errors Must Prove Prejudice

It's not enough that litigants challenging planning and zoning actions prove that the city or county committed a procedural error.  They also have to show the error was prejudicial, that it led to substantial injury, and that if the error had not occurred, a different result would have been likely.

In Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth the court of appeal reminded project opponents of their duty to show that error is prejudicial.  Prejudice will not be presumed—even if the challengers are opposing a new Wal-Mart.

The city had approved general plan amendments, a specific plan and a development agreement for a new retail center to be anchored by a Wal-Mart Supercenter.  In step with the now-familiar drill for Wal-Mart projects, an organization promptly filed suit to challenge the approvals.