at 58-59, 589 A.2d at 850. Rather, § 807 codifies the injury-in-fact and actual-case-or-controversy requirements of standing. Consequently, plaintiffs must still demonstrate “a personal injury traceable to the defendant’s conduct that the court can remedy by granting the sought-after relief.” Brigham v. State, 2005 VT 105, ¶ 16, 179 Vt. 525, 889 A.2d 715 (mem.). ¶ 8. Vermont courts are vested with subject matter jurisdiction only over actual cases or controversies involving litigants with adverse interests. Agency of Natural Res. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 173 Vt. 302, 306, 796 A.2d 476, 479 (2001). To have a case or controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiffs must have standing. See Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 166 Vt. 337, 341, 693 A.2d 1045, 1047 (1997) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of standing, any judicial
holding that one purpose of separation of powers doctrine is to safeguard litigants right to have claim decided before judge  free from potential domination by other branches of government citations omitted recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding that the presidential privilege is inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution