Biester exception in Pennsylvania

1994Because they believe they have rights under the Ordinance, they rely on William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168 , 346 A.2d 269 (1975), and its progeny, specifically, Application of Biester, 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (1979), to bring this challenge. 4 The Biester exception recognizes that the prevention of waste of tax revenue is insufficient to allow standing but then allows “taxpayer standing” where otherwise the action would go unchallenged. 5 The elements for this taxpayer standing are also that those directly affected are beneficially affected, judicial relief

1994Because they believe they have rights under the Ordinance, they rely on William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168 , 346 A.2d 269 (1975), and its progeny, specifically, Application of Biester, 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (1979), to bring this challenge. 4 The Biester exception recognizes that the prevention of waste of tax revenue is insufficient to allow standing but then allows “taxpayer standing” where otherwise the action would go unchallenged. 5 The elements for this taxpayer standing are also that those directly affected are beneficially affected, judicial relief

2025Additionally, the Biester test for taxpayer standing may be applied “only when a taxpayer is challenging obligations placed on the general public or emoluments given through the exercise of governmental power imposed or given by general ordinances or statutes.” Boady, 699 A.2d at 1361 (quoting Drummond v. Univ. of Pa., 651 A.2d 572, 577-78 ) (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)) (additional quotation marks omitted).

2025Additionally, the Biester test for taxpayer standing may be applied “only when a taxpayer is challenging obligations placed on the general public or emoluments given through the exercise of governmental power imposed or given by general ordinances or statutes.” Boady, 699 A.2d at 1361 (quoting Drummond v. Univ. of Pa., 651 A.2d 572, 577-78 ) (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)) (additional quotation marks omitted).

2025The Biester exception has been applied to recognize taxpayer standing where the plaintiff’s interest is not substantial, direct, and immediate, but the plaintiff can satisfy five specific criteria: “(1) governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged, (2) those directly affected are beneficially affected, (3) judicial relief is appropriate, (4) redress through other channels is not available, and (5) no one else is better positioned to assert the claim.” Boady, 699 A.2d at 1361 ; see also Reich v. Berks Cnty.

2025The Biester exception has been applied to recognize taxpayer standing where the plaintiff’s interest is not substantial, direct, and immediate, but the plaintiff can satisfy five specific criteria: “(1) governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged, (2) those directly affected are beneficially affected, (3) judicial relief is appropriate, (4) redress through other channels is not available, and (5) no one else is better positioned to assert the claim.” Boady, 699 A.2d at 1361 ; see also Reich v. Berks Cnty.

2009We further concluded that the Auditor General was better situated to bring an action seeking a declaratory judgment to resolve the question of whether the *351 Department of the Auditor General had the authority to audit the financial accounts of the General Assembly. 11 In Citizens Against Gambling Subsidies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 591 Pa. 312 , 916 A.2d 624 (2007), the petitioners, who opposed the use of gaming revenues to subsidize slot machine licenses, sought to challenge the Gaming Control Board’s issuance of a slot machine license to Intervenor Presque Isle Downs, In

2009We further concluded that the Auditor General was better situated to bring an action seeking a declaratory judgment to resolve the question of whether the *351 Department of the Auditor General had the authority to audit the financial accounts of the General Assembly. 11 In Citizens Against Gambling Subsidies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 591 Pa. 312 , 916 A.2d 624 (2007), the petitioners, who opposed the use of gaming revenues to subsidize slot machine licenses, sought to challenge the Gaming Control Board’s issuance of a slot machine license to Intervenor Presque Isle Downs, In

2008It cites Schenck v. Pittsburgh, 364 Pa. 31 , 70 A.2d 612 (1950), where an objecting property owner argued that mere certification of a parcel as blighted did not conclusively establish that it would be used for a public purpose, but the Supreme Court stated that in the absence of any indication that the agency acted in bad faith or was wholly arbitrary in certifying the area, a certification was not subject to judicial review.

2008It cites Schenck v. Pittsburgh, 364 Pa. 31 , 70 A.2d 612 (1950), where an objecting property owner argued that mere certification of a parcel as blighted did not conclusively establish that it would be used for a public purpose, but the Supreme Court stated that in the absence of any indication that the agency acted in bad faith or was wholly arbitrary in certifying the area, a certification was not subject to judicial review.

2007In Pittsburgh Palisades, 888 A.2d 655 , potential applicants for a slot machine license challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which required the Commonwealth to return license fees to license holders if certain delineated changes were made to the Gaming Control Board within five years after the issuance of licenses.

2007In Pittsburgh Palisades, 888 A.2d 655 , potential applicants for a slot machine license challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which required the Commonwealth to return license fees to license holders if certain delineated changes were made to the Gaming Control Board within five years after the issuance of licenses.

2000See Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986) (standing afforded to challenge constitutionality of public official compensation law); Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38 , 550 A.2d 184 (1988) (standing granted to challenge election); Rizzo v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 13 , 582 A.2d 1128 (1990) (standing granted in action to enjoin the payment of benefits pursuant to police pension plan).

2000See Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986) (standing afforded to challenge constitutionality of public official compensation law); Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38 , 550 A.2d 184 (1988) (standing granted to challenge election); Rizzo v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 13 , 582 A.2d 1128 (1990) (standing granted in action to enjoin the payment of benefits pursuant to police pension plan).

2000As we have written before, Biester and its progeny “have developed a restrictive standard with narrow exceptions.” Falter, 614 A.2d at 331 .

2000As we have written before, Biester and its progeny “have developed a restrictive standard with narrow exceptions.” Falter, 614 A.2d at 331 .

2000We note at the outset of our examination of this issue that the Biester court specifically emphasized that an exception to a taxpayer’s lack of standing “will most often occur when those directly and immediately affected by the complained of expenditures are beneficially affected as opposed to adversely affected.” Id., 487 Pa. at 445 , 409 A.2d at 852 .

2000We note at the outset of our examination of this issue that the Biester court specifically emphasized that an exception to a taxpayer’s lack of standing “will most often occur when those directly and immediately affected by the complained of expenditures are beneficially affected as opposed to adversely affected.” Id., 487 Pa. at 445 , 409 A.2d at 852 .

2000See Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986) (standing afforded to challenge constitutionality of public official compensation law); Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38 , 550 A.2d 184 (1988) (standing granted to challenge election); Rizzo v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 13 , 582 A.2d 1128 (1990) (standing granted in action to enjoin the payment of benefits pursuant to police pension plan).

2000See Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986) (standing afforded to challenge constitutionality of public official compensation law); Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38 , 550 A.2d 184 (1988) (standing granted to challenge election); Rizzo v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 13 , 582 A.2d 1128 (1990) (standing granted in action to enjoin the payment of benefits pursuant to police pension plan).

1994Because they believe they have rights under the Ordinance, they rely on William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168 , 346 A.2d 269 (1975), and its progeny, specifically, Application of Biester, 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (1979), to bring this challenge. 4 The Biester exception recognizes that the prevention of waste of tax revenue is insufficient to allow standing but then allows “taxpayer standing” where otherwise the action would go unchallenged. 5 The elements for this taxpayer standing are also that those directly affected are beneficially affected, judicial relief

1994Because they believe they have rights under the Ordinance, they rely on William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168 , 346 A.2d 269 (1975), and its progeny, specifically, Application of Biester, 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (1979), to bring this challenge. 4 The Biester exception recognizes that the prevention of waste of tax revenue is insufficient to allow standing but then allows “taxpayer standing” where otherwise the action would go unchallenged. 5 The elements for this taxpayer standing are also that those directly affected are beneficially affected, judicial relief