Savage v. Munn

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff property owners had standing to challenge a tax measure based on an allegation that the measure \will have the effect of making them pay proportionally more\ than owners of similarly assessed properties in the same jurisdiction
• taxpayer standing depends “on allegations that the challenged governmental action had actual or potential adverse fiscal consequences” (quoting Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or 3, 8, 588 P2d 1281 (1979))
• taxpayer’s “complaint was that California had denied her—a new owner—the benefits of the same assessment value that her neighbors—older owners—enjoyed”
• “The workings of Measure 5 are ‘present facts,’ not simply possible future events.”
• ‘The workings of Measure 5 are “present facts,” not simply possible future events.’
• the plaintiffs had standing as property taxpayers to challenge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment where they “alleged that [the amendment] will have the effect of making them pay proportionally more for the same (or fewer) services”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).