noting that “our doctrine on standing parallels the federal doctrine,” and applying Lujan in the context of a public interest claim
How later courts described this case
- noting that “our doctrine on standing parallels the federal doctrine,” and applying Lujan in the context of a public interest claim
- stating that on a 12(b) facial challenge a court “looks only at the pleadings”
- "Where a case has been dismissed because of lack of standing, this Court must examine ‘whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the requisite elements of standing in their complaint to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.’”
- “Standing is a preliminary question to be determined by this Court before reaching the merits of the case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice KIDWELL,
Dissenting.
Because this Court’s majority opinion in Van Valkenburgh v. Citizens For Term Limits, 135 Idaho 121 , 15 P.3d 1129 (2000), directs a result contrary to that reached by the majority in this case, I respectfully dissent.
I dissented in Van Valkenburgh because the only injury alleged by the petitioners in that case — that those voters who opposed the term limits pledge initiative when it was adopted would be injured when it was implemented on the ballot — did not constitute a personalized injury suffered by the petitioners but not by all voters or taxpayers alike, especially in light of this Court’s holding in Selkirk-Priest Basin Assoc. v. State, 128 Idaho 831 , 919 P.2d 1032 (1996). Although I dissented in Van Valkenburgh , the majority opinion in that case is now the law of this state. The plaintiffs in this case have alleged injury based upon their opposition to the contract with the Chamber, the diversion of option tax revenues from emergency services to expenditures related to that contract, and the resulting increase in property taxes to cover for that diversion. These alleged injuries are every bit as personalized as those alleged by the petitioners in Van Valkenburgh . In order to prevent further confusion and dilution of the law of standing, to be *107 consistent with Van Valkenburgh , and in accordance with the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court should hold that the plaintiffs in this case have standing to challenge the City’s actions and reverse the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.