a variety of rules of self-restraint have been developed over the years, one of which has surfaced in this case. Generally, courts refuse to decide disputes presented in a lawsuit when the party asserting an issue is not properly situated to seek an adjudication. See Alons v. Iowa Dist. Ct, 698 N.W.2d 858, 864 (Iowa 2005). This doctrine is now called standing, although it began to develop as a doctrinal rule long before a designation of its title. Today, the doctrine not only serves to limit which persons may bring a lawsuit, but it has developed into a larger cultural doctrine, concerned with the “ ‘role of the cour prudential restrictions on judicial action based on policy grounds that help explain a general, compatible approach to standing. See Reitz, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. at 459-61 (<HOLDING>). Thus, we return to our general two-prong test
recognizing significant differences in text of state and federal equal protection clauses holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state holding federal courts should follow state court decisions that are based on facts essentially indistinguishable from the facts at hand recognizing doctrine recognizing most states essentially follow the federalstanding doctrine but also citing differences in state and federal law