In Miller Apple Ltd. P'ship v Emmet County, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 9, 2010 (Docket No. 2730) the Court of Appeals, in affirming the Circuit Court's ruling found that Plaintiff's interest in thwarting competition from a nearby restaurant business, is not a legally protected interest sufficient to confer standing for the plaintiff. 

At issue in Miller Apple Ltd. P'ship, was a PUD agreement governing a Petoskey development known as Bear Creek Plaza.  The Plaintiff operates an Applebee's on a leased lot in a plaza across from a vacant parcel of property.  Pursuant to the PUD agreement, only two restaurants were permitted in the Plaza.  However, the intervening defendants initiated proceedings to amend the PUD agreement to permit three restaurants and to change the designation of the vacant lot to permit the construction of a Bob Evans.  The Plaintiff, filed a claim of appeal of the County Board's of Commissioners decision to approve the amendment.  In their motion, the Plaintiff alleged that the operation of the Bob Evans would cause it economic injury in violation of a legally protected interest under the constitution. 

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Circuit Court and dismissed the Plaintiff's action.  In doing so, the Court of Appeals held for the Plaintiff to have appellate standing, the plaintiff must be aggrieved.  The plaintiff, in a zoning case alleging they have been grieved must prove "that he has suffered special damages related to the beneficial use and enjoyment of his own land that are not common to other similarly situated property owners."  The Court held that the plaintiff's interest in thwarting competition from a nearby restaurant business, even assuming that such prospective competition constitutes an "actual" and not merely "conjectural" or "hypothetical" injury, is not a "legally protected interest" sufficient to establish standing."