Manzara v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
1ConcurrenceMichael A. Wolff, Judge
Introduction
“First, do no harm” — a fundamental precept of medicine — needs to be applied *665to this judicial decision, which may cause unnecessary harm to Missouri’s law that freely grants standing to taxpayers to challenge governmental spending.
In determining that the taxpayer plaintiffs did not show that the tax credits in this case are an expenditure of public funds — which they are — the principal opinion takes the liberty, unnecessarily in my view, of distorting Missouri’s case law on standing.
Although the principal opinion and Judge Stith’s concurring opinion leave the door open to get…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.