right-of-way. In short, by crafting its complaint to avoid any connection to U.S. Route 27, Union County has also managed to avoid pleading any personal interest in its own case. As such, the trial court did not err in dismissing Union County’s declaratory judgment claim for lack of standing. Union County Cannot Maintain Its Claim for Injunctive Relief Under Third-Party Standing Principles. Union County also alleges a third-party interest in this suit, namely that INDOT’s actions “may impact other properties and may implicate a broader public health and safety concern for Union County, Indiana.” Appellant’s App. at 25. Unlike declaratory judgment actions, a party may seek equitable relief (such as an injunction) on the basis of third-party standing. Cf. Cittadine, 790 N.E.2d at 984 (<HOLDING>). While the general rule of standing requires a
recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances holding that a writ of mandamus was an appropriate means of vacating a commission order holding no appeal permitted from dismissal of writ petition holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus