Standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching the merits of a suit.
To have standing [to pursue a claim], a plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy and have suffered some concrete injury that is capable of resolution by the court.
Jodka v. City of Cleveland, 2014 Ohio 208 - Ohio: Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate Dist. 2014
As this court noted in Tate v. Garfield Hts., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99099, 2013-Ohio-2204, ¶11-12:
Standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching the merits of a suit. Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017, 979 N.E.2d 1214, ¶ 23. To establish standing, the party invoking the court's jurisdiction must establish that he suffered
(1) an injury that is
(2) fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and
(3) is likely to be redressed by the requested relief.
Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 22, citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).
To have standing [to pursue a claim], a plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy and have suffered some concrete injury that is capable of resolution by the court. Middletown v. Ferguson, 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75, 25 Ohio B. 125, 495 N.E.2d 380 (1986). It is not sufficient for the individual to have a general interest in the subject matter of the action. The plaintiff must be the party who will be directly benefitted or injured by the outcome of the action. Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24, 20 Ohio B. 210, 485 N.E.2d 701 (1985). The purpose behind this "real party in interest rule" is "`* * * to enable the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.'" Id., quoting In re Highland Holiday Subdivision, 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240, 273 N.E.2d 903 (4th Dist.1971). (Emphasis added.)