a claim for relief can be grounded. The plaintiff must allege an injury in fact to a legally protected or cognizable interest.” Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Dist. Court, 862 P.2d 944, 947 (Colo.1993); accord, GF Gaming Corp. v. Hyatt Gaming Mgmt. Inc., 77 P.3d 894, 896 (Colo.App.2003); see also Colo. Chiropractic Ass’n v. Heuser, 177 Colo. 434, 438, 494 P.2d 833, 834 (1972) (dismissing declaratory judgment action because the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge statute absent a showing “that it [wa]s an aggrieved party or that it [wa]s a party whose interest the statute was designed to protect”); Associated Master Barbers of Am., Local No. 115 v. Journeyman Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists & Proprietors Int’l Union of Am., Local No. 205, 132 Colo. 52, 55, 285 P.2d 599, 600-01 (1955) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 34 But the Owners have not asserted any
holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding that persons not parties to a contract did not have standing to seek declaratory judgment on contracts validity holding that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in either a thirdparty beneficiary individual or associational capacity because there was nothing in the contract between a conservation district and a city concerning rates charged to the city that conferred donee  or creditorbeneficiary standing upon the plaintiffs to challenge the contracts terms holding that an action challenging the validity of a will may not be brought under ohios declaratory judgment act holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract