The sole issue on review is whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment to the Montana Department of Transportation. The District Court granted summary judgment because it found that Carter did not have standing to challenge the validity of Montana's gasoline license tax as applied to Indian retailers inside the boundaries of the Rocky Boy Reservation. Standing is a justiciability doctrine designed to control access to the judicial system by determining who is entitled to have a case adjudicated. Comm'rs of Big Horn Cty. The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get a complaint before a court and not on the issues the party wishes to have adjudicated.
Courts approach standing in two ways.
The first approach focuses on the constitutional provisions of standing and the second approach focuses on the prudential restrictions that courts use to preserve judicial credibility and to deny standing. At a minimum, the constitutional provisions require that a plaintiff be personally injured or be threatened with immediate injury by the alleged constitutional or statutory violation. This personal stake requirement is dispositive. If a party seeking review is not among the injured, that party is not entitled to judicial review. For example, in Olson, the appellants challenged the constitutional validity of certain statutes that require county residence to obtain benefits such as obtaining a fishing or hunting license or running for county office.