8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2009Under that formulation, a taxpayer has standing to challenge a governmental action if: “(1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged; (2) those directly and immediately affected by the complained-of matter are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action; (3) judicial relief is appropriate; (4) redress through other channels is unavailable; and (5) no other persons are better situated to assert the claim.” Id. (citing Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 207 , 888 A.2d 655, 662 (2005)). 2009Under that formulation, a taxpayer has standing to challenge a governmental action if: “(1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged; (2) those directly and immediately affected by the complained-of matter are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action; (3) judicial relief is appropriate; (4) redress through other channels is unavailable; and (5) no other persons are better situated to assert the claim.” Id. (citing Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 207 , 888 A.2d 655, 662 (2005)). | 6 | 6 |
Stilp v. COM., GENERAL ASSEMBLYgreen2 sentences2009Under that formulation, a taxpayer has standing to challenge a governmental action if: “(1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged; (2) those directly and immediately affected by the complained-of matter are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action; (3) judicial relief is appropriate; (4) redress through other channels is unavailable; and (5) no other persons are better situated to assert the claim.” Id. (citing Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 207 , 888 A.2d 655, 662 (2005)). 2009Under that formulation, a taxpayer has standing to challenge a governmental action if: "(1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged; (2) those directly and immediately affected by the complained-of matter are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action; (3) judicial relief is appropriate; (4) redress through other channels is unavailable; and (5) no other persons are better situated to assert the claim." Id. (citing Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 207 , 888 A.2d 655, 662 (2005)). | 1 | 2 |
Stilp v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2007Id. at 593-94, 905 A.2d at 950 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.
green
2 sentences2007Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196 , 888 A.2d 655, 662 (2005) (citing Consumer Party, 507 A.2d at 329 ). 2007Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196 , 888 A. 2d 655, 662 (2005) (citing Consumer Party, 507 A. 2d at 329 ). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Costopoulos v. Thornburgh
green
2 sentences2007The Court considered an exception to the traditional standing requirements, taxpayer standing: Under [Application of] Biester, [ 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (1979),] a taxpayer has standing to challenge an act if: (1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged; (2) those directly and immediately affected by the complained-of matter are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action; (3) judicial relief is appropriate; (4) redress through other channels is unavailable; and (5) no other persons are better suited to assert the claim. 2007The Court considered an exception to the traditional standing requirements, taxpayer standing: Under [Application of] Biester, [ 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (1979),] a taxpayer has standing to challenge an act if: (1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged; (2) those directly and immediately affected by the complained-of matter are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action; (3) judicial relief is appropriate; (4) redress through other channels is unavailable; and (5) no other persons are better suited to assert the claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.