Editorial proof done (No corrections) (SY).

California Supreme Court Says Standing to Challenge Government Expenditures Not Limited to Property Taxpayers

California Supreme Court Says Standing to Challenge Government Expenditures Not Limited to Property Taxpayers

California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that an individual must pay property tax in order to have standing to pursue an injunction for improper expenditures by a locality, holding that paying, or being liable to pay, any tax assessed by the locality on the individual is sufficient.

The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that an individual must pay property tax in order to have standing to pursue an injunction for improper expenditures by a locality, holding that paying, or being liable to pay, any tax assessed by the locality on the individual is sufficient.

The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that an individual must pay property tax in order to have standing to pursue an injunction for improper expenditures by a locality, holding that paying, or being liable to pay, any tax assessed by the locality on the individual is sufficient. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye urged the legislature to clarify what kinds of taxes are sufficient to establish standing in suits against a government for wasteful or illegal expenditures. Justice Leondra R. Kruger, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that the statute does not clearly require the tax paid by the individual to be directly assessed by the locality.

The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that an individual must pay property tax in order to have standing to pursue an injunction for improper expenditures by a locality, holding that paying, or being liable to pay, any tax assessed by the locality on the individual is sufficient. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye urged the legislature to clarify what kinds of taxes are sufficient to establish standing in suits against a government for wasteful or illegal expenditures. Justice Leondra R. Kruger, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that the statute does not clearly require the tax paid by the individual to be directly assessed by the locality.