Cited by

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 13 (2005) (plaintiff must have viable claim against defendant to press a class action).

v. FONTES Opinion of the Court ¶11 Nonetheless, Arizona has “established a rigorous standing requirement.” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc.

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6 (2005).

Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6 (2005).

¶7 The first element of standing requires Strojnik to have “a distinct and palpable injury.” See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6 (2005) (citation omitted).

¶7 The first element of standing requires Strojnik to have “a distinct and palpable injury.” See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6 (2005) (citation omitted).

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 10 (2005).

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6 (2005) (citation omitted).

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6, -06, ¶¶ 7-8, -59 (App. 2008).

The only authority VJA provides in support of its position is Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc.

Because Arizona has no counterpart to the federal “ease or controversy” requirement, “the question of standing in Arizona is not a constitutional mandate.” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6 , (quoting Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Cmty.

See Karbal v. Arizona Dep’t of Rev., see also Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc.

Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6

Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶ 6

is not a constitutional mandate.’” Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., quoting Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Cmty.

See Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ¶¶ 12-13

E.g., Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 6, Bennett v. Napolitano (“Napolitano”), ¶ 19