some other traditional damage, some personal injury must be demonstrated. In this case, Godfrey claims nothing more than the general vindication of the public interest in seeing that the legislature acts in conformity with the constitution. This is an admirable interest, but not one that is alone sufficient to establish the personal injury required for standing. Godfrey next argues she has standing as a private litigant to assert the rights of nonparty workers’ compensation claimants who are, in fact, injured under the statute. She argues she is the only litigant in Iowa who is able to assert a constitutional challenge to the statute because the window of opportunity for other litigants to file a single-subject challenge has passed. See State v. Mabry, 460 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Iowa 1990) (<HOLDING>). Third-party standing normally requires a
holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal holding that the alc may not rule upon a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation or statute but may rule upon an asapplied challenge holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding no singlesubject challenge to a statute may be brought after the act is codified holding that if a person wishes to challenge a mere procedural violation in the adoption of a regulation or other agency action the challenge must be brought within six years of the decision and that similarly if the person wishes to bring a policybased facial challenge to the governments decision that too must be brought within six years of the decision