Opinion ID: 1755180
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Continuing Standing

Text: The State argues that even if Myers initially qualified for the taxpayer exception, he no longer has standing because the alleged illegal expenditure has been returned to the State. The State contends that WG Trading's return of the State's assets also removes Myers' standing because standing must be maintained throughout the course of litigation for a court to maintain jurisdiction. Brief for appellee at 13-14. It is true that the personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness). See United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980) (quoted in Mullendore v. Nuernberger, 230 Neb. 921, 434 N.W.2d 511 (1989)). Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing and that a defendant may point out a pre-existing standing defect late in the day. (Emphasis supplied.) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 570 n. 4, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Yet, in the same case, the Court stated that jurisdiction, including standing, is to be assessed under the facts existing when the complaint is filed. Id. The timing requirement is important because the plaintiff's personal interest is to be assessed under the rubric of standing at the commencement of the case, and under the rubric of mootness thereafter. Becker v. Federal Election Com'n, 230 F.3d 381, 386 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2000). The State cites only one decision in which a court held that a plaintiff can lose its standing during a lawsuit. See Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Babbitt, 54 F.3d 1477 (10th Cir.1995). In a more recent case, however, the 10th Circuit held that [s]tanding is determined as of the time the action is brought. Nova Health Systems v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.2005). In a, the court specifically addressed its earlier holding: In Powder River Basin Res. Council v. Babbitt , we stated that a plaintiff had lost standing in the middle of a lawsuit. . . . Although we used standing terminology, it seems that this was really a mootness question. Other courts have criticized Powder River for using standing terminology for what was really a mootness issue. See Becker v. FEC, 230 F.3d 381, 386 n. 3 (1st Cir.2000). Nova Health Systems v. Gandy, 416 F.3d at 1155 n. 5. We reject the State's argument that Myers lost standing.