general standing requirement (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

general standing requirement in Indiana

6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State Ex Rel. Cittadine v. Indiana Department of Transportationgreen
ind · 2003 · cited in 4 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2019
2 sentences

2019The Court in Cittadine also explained both that " Pence did not alter the public standing doctrine in Indiana" and that the doctrine, though subject to limits, "continues to be a viable exception to the general standing requirement." 790 N.E.2d at 983 .

2016Berkshire v. City of Logansport, 928 N.E.2d 587, 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans denied. [20] Even though no private cause of action exists to enforce I.C. § 31-25-2-5, in Cittadine v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp. 790 N.E.2d 978, 980 (Ind. 2003), our supreme court reaffirmed the continued vitality of Indiana’s public standing doctrine: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1602-PL-380 | October 25, 2016 Page 10 of 25 The public standing doctrine, which applies in cases where public rather than private rights are at issue and in cases which involve the enforcement of a public rather than a priva

14
Embry v. O'BANNONgreen
ind · 2003 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2006–2019
2 sentences

2019Because of their “shared public interest as taxpayers in the allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of public funds,” Justice Dickson reasoned, joined by Justice Rucker, the plaintiffs fell “within the public standing exception to the general standing requirement.” Id. at 160 .

2019Because of their "shared public interest as taxpayers in the allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of public funds," Justice Dickson reasoned, joined by Justice Rucker, the plaintiffs fell "within the public standing exception to the general standing requirement." Id. at 160 .

12
State Ex Rel. Berkshire v. City of Logansportgreen
indctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Berkshire v. City of Logansport, 928 N.E.2d 587, 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans denied. [20] Even though no private cause of action exists to enforce I.C. § 31-25-2-5, in Cittadine v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp. 790 N.E.2d 978, 980 (Ind. 2003), our supreme court reaffirmed the continued vitality of Indiana’s public standing doctrine: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1602-PL-380 | October 25, 2016 Page 10 of 25 The public standing doctrine, which applies in cases where public rather than private rights are at issue and in cases which involve the enforcement of a public rather than a priva

2016Berkshire v. City of Logansport, 928 N.E.2d 587, 597 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), trans denied. [20] Even though no private cause of action exists to enforce I.C. § 31-25-2-5, in Cittadine v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 790 N.E.2d 978, 980 (Ind.2003), our supreme court reaffirmed-the continued vitality of Indiana’s public standing doctrine: The public standing doctrine, which applies in cases where public rather than private rights áre at issue and in cases which involve the enforcement of a public rather than a private right, continues to be a viable exception to the general standing requirement. - The publ

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Pence v. State green
ind · 1995
1 sentence

2003The plaintiffs claimed that the salary provisions violated Article 4, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution which generally requires that legislative enactments be “confined to one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Noting that the plaintiffs were allegedly interested as citizens and, as to one plaintiff, as a taxpayer, this Court declined to address the plaintiffs’ claim applying the general standing rule because the plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate any interest beyond that of the general public.” 652 N.E.2d at 488 .

12003–2003

Where else courts name it

VA 11 (1981–2000) FL 8 (1994–2022) TX 7 (2003–2023) IN 6 (2003–2019) CO 3 (1989–2002) NY 3 (2012–2024) MS 3 (2008–2015) CA 2 (1982–2025) NC 2 (2001–2002) NE 2 (2004–2009) VT 2 (2015–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check