Cited by

See State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2 (1982).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 8 (2014); State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2 (1982) (“Arizona has no analog to the case or controversy provision in its [C]onstitution, and our reluctance to consider issues raised where there is no standing is solely a rule of judicial restraint.”).

Standing to protect a third person’s constitutional rights requires the claimant to establish (1) “a substantial relationship to the third person”; (2) “the third person [is] unable to assert the constitutional right on [her] own behalf”; and (3) “the failure to grant the party standing must result in a dilution of the third person’s constitutional rights.” State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2 (1982) (citation omitted); ¶ 16 (App. 2000); Heather A. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 1 CA-JV 21-0315, 2022 WL

To assert a constitutional challenge, an individual must have suffered “some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.” State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc., n.2 (1982) ().

have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.” State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2 (1982) (cleaned up).

10As our supreme court has explained, “standing is not a constitutional jurisdictional requirement in the state courts of Arizona,” and “our reluctance to consider issues raised where there is no standing is solely a rule of judicial restraint.” State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2 (1982).

See Hirsch v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc., ("[I]t is a highly desirable legal objective that cases be decided on their merits and that any doubts should be resolved in favor of the party seeking to set aside the default judgment."); State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2 (1982) (addressing merits because "standing is not a constitutional jurisdictional requirement" in Arizona and other party failed to raise the issue on appeal).

State v. B Bar Enters., Inc. , , 101 n.2, , 980 (1982).

see also State v. B Bar Enters., Inc. , , 101 n.2, , 980 (1982) ("standing is not a constitutional jurisdictional requirement in the state courts of Arizona").

See State v. B Bar Enters., Inc., n.2, n.2 (1982).

in Ariz., , )); see also Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n, 148 Ariz. at 6 , 712 P.2d at 919 (“We have previously determined that the question of standing in Arizona is not a constitutional mandate since we have no counterpart to the ‘case or controversy' requirement of the federal constitution.” (citing State v. B Bar Enters., , )).

State v. B Bar Enters., , 101 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982).

-26, ¶ 5 , -61 (App.2003) (standing is not a jurisdictional doctrine under Arizona law; State’s failure to raise standing in trial court constituted waiver of the issue); cf. State v. B Bar Enters., , 101 n.2, , 980 n.2 (1982) (standing is not a constitutional jurisdictional requirement and Arizona courts may consider questions despite lack of standing); see also Azabdaftari v. Mayer, 734 F.Supp.2d 51 , 53 n.3 (D.D.C.2010) (federal civil forfeiture statute does not explicitly state its exhaustio

in Ariz., (citing State v. B Bar Enters., P.2d 978 (1982)), and thus, when addressing questions of standing “we are confronted only with questions of prudential or judicial restraint.” Id.

State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc., , 101 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982).

See State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc., , 101 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982).

¶ 19 Our supreme court has determined that “the question of standing in Arizona is not a constitutional mandate since we have no counterpart to the ‘case or controversy 5 requirement of the federal constitution.” Armory Park, 148 Ariz. at 6 , 712 P.2d at 919 (quoting State v. B Bar Enter., , ).

¶78 Because standing is not a constitutional jurisdictional requirement in Arizona, see State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc., , 100 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982), we find that the Petitioners have standing to challenge the Act on overbreadth and vagueness grounds.

Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., , State v. B Bar Enterprises

See State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc.

¶ ¶ 28 State v. B Bar Enterprises, , a case relied upon by the Sears, actually involved circumstances quite different from those of this action.

State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc., , 101 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982).

State v. B. Bar Enterprises, Inc., , 101 n. 2, , 980 n. 2 (1982).

Inc., , (for jurisdictional purposes, standing is not a constitutional requirement in Arizona courts; if not raised, a court may consider the merits); Ariz.R.Civ.P.

Inc., , (for jurisdictional purposes, standing is not a constitutional requirement in Arizona courts; if not raised, a court may consider the merits); Ariz.R.Civ.P.