at 320 ("[T]he Commission is not a party to proceedings before itself.”). 37 . This Court has stated that “persons performing adjudicatory functions have no cognizable personal interest before a higher tribunal in seeking to have their rulings sustained.” Brooks v. Johnson, 560 A.2d 1001, 1004 (Del.1989) (citing Wilmington Trust Co. v. Barron, 470 A.2d 257, 261-62 (Del.1983)). The same principle applies here, and weighs against granting standing to a subordinate administrative body when its ruling is overturned on appeal. 38 . Ropp v. King, 2007 WL 2198771, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 25, 2007). 39 . 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law, § 416. 40 . 73 A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure, § 409. 41 . See, e.g., Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 514 U.S. at 129, 115 S.Ct. 1278 (<HOLDING>); Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc. v. SEC, 431
recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor holding that the director of the office of workers compensation programs in the us dept of labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the benefits review board and finding that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing congress says so emphasis in original holding that members of congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the line item veto act holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise  any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency