Greg Bowerman

Summary

The court answered two certified questions concerning whether a taxpayer could pursue an illegal-exaction claim based on state reimbursement for Actos and whether prior precedent governed the dispute. It held that the taxpayer had standing but failed to allege that state funds were illegal, misapplied, or arbitrarily spent because the State reimbursed properly prescribed drugs, and it therefore concluded that the prior precedent did not apply. The court declined to decide whether that precedent remained good law or adopted the broader interpretation urged by the taxpayer because doing so would be advisory. Justice Danielson, joined by Justices Corbin and Hoo​​fman, concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on the first question but arguing that the court should address and overrule the prior precedent to the extent necessary.