South Texas Water Authority v. Lomas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that taxpayer lacked standing to assert that the contract was misapplied, but would have had standing to allege that the contract was illegal
• noting that courts presume that a noncontracting third party has no justiciable interest in a contract
• noting that “general beneficence does not create third-party rights,” the court held a water supply contract providing that the appellant agreed to sell water to the city did not render the city’s residents third- party beneficiaries of contract
• declining to confer third-party beneficiary status upon residents of a city to a contract between the city and a state water supplier even though the supplier’s creation was “intended generally to benefit the people of this state”
• ‘‘[A]s a general rule, to have standing an individual must demonstrate a particularized interest in a conflict distinct from that sustained by the public at large.”
• residents of city were not third-party beneficiaries of water-supply contract between water authority and city

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).