167 Vt. 157, 159, 702 A.2d 132, 134 (1997); see V.R.C.P. 56. We first address defendant’s argument that the State has no standing to bring a claim for restitution against North River pursuant to a policy under which they are not the insured. Because we hold that the State is granted a cause of action by 10 V.S.A. § 1941(f), we disagree. Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts’ jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const, art. III. Vermont has adopted this requirement and with it the requirement that for plaintiffs to have standing to bring a case, they must have suffered a particular injury that is attributable to the defendant and that can be redressed by a court of law. Parker v. Town of Milton, 169 Vt. 74, 77-78, 726 A.2d 477, 480 (1998) (<HOLDING>). “The question of standing ‘involves both
holding that the balancing test established by the united states supreme court was still appropriate to determine the retroactivity or nonretroactivity of a new decision holding this court has adopted the test articulated by the united states supreme court in lujan v defenders of wildlife 504 us 555 56061 1992 holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under  2254d holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is applicable to the states and therefore the us supreme courts interpretation of the provision is binding upon this court recognizing that the supreme court has indicated that affirmative misconduct is a prerequisite to a finding of estoppel against the united states