# Young v. City of Ketchum

> Idaho Supreme Court · March 26, 2002 · 137 Idaho 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784045

## Case

- **Full name:** Baxter C. YOUNG, John D. Jacoby, Fred White, Judy White, Tom Bartlett, and Frank Suhadolnik, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF KETCHUM, an Idaho Municipal Corporation; Guy Coles, Mayor; Randy Hall, David Hutchinson, Maurice Charlatt and Christine Potters, Council Members, City of Ketchum, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 26, 2002
- **Citations:** 137 Idaho 102; 44 P.3d 1157; 2002 Ida. LEXIS 47
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kidwell
- **Judges:** Trout, Kidwell, Schroeder, Walters, Eismann
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784045

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784045. Public record. Not legal advice.