Common Cause v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that increase of flow of commerce, enhancement of employment opportunities, and improvement of State’s economy qualified as public purposes
• stating that a particularized injury exists when an action directly and adversely affects the party’s property, pecuniary, or personal rights
• stating a court should “invalidate expenditures only when the Legislature’s decision has no rational basis”
• declining to decide that taxpayer standing exists “where the gravamen of the complaint is the alleged violation of a . . . constitutional provision having little or no direct connection with plaintiffs’ tax liability”
• plaintiffs lack standing to assert equal protection rights of third parties not involved in the suit
• “The general rule is that a litigant may not assert the constitutional rights of third parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).