Cited by

“Standing is acquired in two ways: either the plaintiff has suffered some injury-in-fact or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” (quotation omitted).

“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” (citing Sierra Club v. Morton , 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 (1972)); Webb Golden Valley

A party has standing when it has suffered an injury-in-fact or when it “is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.”

“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” d 331, 338 (Minn. 2011) ().

4 “Standing is acquired in two ways: either the plaintiff has suffered some injury-in-fact or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” (quotation omitted).

A party can acquire standing when it is “the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing,” or as is the case here, by asserting an “injury-in-fact.” .

(“We will often look to case law from other states for guidance when our own jurisprudence is undefined.”).

And we apply Minnesota law, even when the claims are based on federal law, because Minnesota courts are “not bound by the standing constraints of Article III of the United States Constitution.” d 490, 499 n.6 (Minn. 2024); see also Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 6 (recognizing a “desire for harmony” between federal and state courts on substantive law but emphasizing that Minnesota is not bound by federal standing law).

To suffer an injury-in-fact, a party must allege “a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.”

A party instead has standing either when it has suffered an injury-in-fact or when it is “the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” Lorix v. Crompton Corp.

A party has suffered an injury-in-fact when there has been “a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.” (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).

Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-10 (1946)), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 1993); (“Minnesota antitrust law is generally interpreted consistently with federal antitrust law.”).

Rather, a party has standing when (1) it has suffered an “injury-in-fact,” or (2) it is “the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.”

Second, while father correctly notes that mother was not joined as a party after the May 2021 or July 2021 orders, father lacks standing to make a due- process challenge for mother or to argue that her parental rights were “effectively terminated.” , 624 (Minn. 2007) (requiring that a party have an “injury-in-fact” resulting from the challenged action or be the beneficiary of a legislative enactment granting standing in order to seek relief).

(quoting Lorix v. Crompton Corp. , ).

the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner”), and Minn. Stat. § 462.361 (2020) (allowing “[a]ny person aggrieved” by a municipal ordinance to seek review (emphasis added)); see also Citizens for a (requiring aggrieved person); (requiring injured person); Minn. Pub.

Standing requires a party to have “a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”

We may look for insight into how other jurisdictions have addressed issues that we have not considered, and in this case we find the Supreme Court’s reasoning on the issue for federal courts particularly informative.

The case went to trial, and the jury found the ; Lorix v. Crompton Corp. , d 619, 631 n. 3 (Minn.2007).

Standing requires a party to have “a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy.” Lorix v. Crompton Corp.

The standing doctrine requires only that a party “have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” ().

“Standing is a legal requirement t hat a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”

(stating that caselaw from other states may provide “guidance when our own jurisprudence is undefined”); cf. Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co ., (recognizing that decisions from foreign jurisdictions are not binding but may be persuasive authority).

“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”

We look outside Minnesota “when our own jurisprudence is undefined.”

To have standing, a party must have a sufficient stake in the controversy to seek relief from the court so that the issues before the court will be “vigorously and adequately presented.”

“An injury-in-fact is a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.”

Marine Credit Union, d at 864 n.3

d 619, 624 (Minn. 2007).

“An injury-in-fact is a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.”

3 (stating that caselaw from other states may provide “guidance when our own jurisprudence is undefined”).