Texas:

Wigmore explains the American concept of the corpus delecti rule thus:
[Every crime] reveals three component parts, first, the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss
(as in homicide, a person deceased; in arson, a house burnt; in larceny, property missing); secondly,
somebodys criminality (in contrast, e.g., to accident) as the source of the loss,these two together
involving the commission of a crime by somebody; and thirdly, the accuseds identity as the doer of the
crime.
In most American jurisdictions, including Texas, the corpus delecti rules requires some corroboration of
the first two elements-an injury or loss and a criminal agent Salazar v. State, 86 S.W.3d 640, 645.
It is too elementary that injury must be plead and proved before a cause of action arises to require the
citation of authorities. Whitesboro Nat. Bank v. Wells, 182 S.W.2d 516, 518.
It is axiomatic that standing is the first prerequisite to maintaining a suit. Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323,
324Persons have standing to sue if they can show that (1) they have sustained some direct injury as a
result of a wrongful act; (2) there is a direct relationship between their alleged injury and the claim
sought to be adjudicated; (3) they have a personal stake in the controversy; (4) the challenged action as
caused them an injury in fact, whether economic or otherwiseBecause standing is a jurisdictional
requirement, it may be addressed for the first time on appeal. Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F3d
546, 555
The Supreme Court held that because the named plaintiff was unable to allege and show that he
personally had been injured by the defendants actions, his lack of individual standing precluded the trial
courts exercise of subject matter jurisdictionThe court explained that *o+ur state constitution
contemplates, that plaintiffs seeking redress in the courts must first demonstrate standing. Because the
Texas constitution requires the presence of a proper party to raise issues before the court, standing is a
threshold inquiry regardless of whether the plaintiff brings an individual or class action. Polaris
Industries, Inc. v. McDonald, 119 S.W.3d 331, 338, 339.
A cause of action constists of a plaintiffs primary right and the defendants act or omission which
violates that right. Stone Fort Nat. Bank of Nacogdoches v. Forbes, 126 Tex. 568, 91 S.W.2d 674, 676
(1936); Martinez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 651 S.W.2d 18, 19Moreover, a cause of action
comprises every fact which is necessary for a plaintiff to prove in order to obtain judgment. Krchnak v.
Fulton, 759 S.W.2d 524, 526.
The requirement in this State that a plaintiff have standing to assert a claim derives from the Texas
Constitutions separation of powers among the departments of government, which denies the judiciary
authority to decide issues in the abstract, and from the Open Courts provision, which provides court
access only to a person for an injury done him. A court has no jurisdiction over a claim made by a
plaintiff without standing to assert it. For standing, a plaintiff must be personally aggrieved; his alleged
injury must be concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, not hypothetical. A plaintiff does not
lack standing simply because he cannot prevail on the merits of his claim; he lacks standing because his
claim of injury is too slight for a court to afford redress. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et
al, NO. 03-1189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.

The dissent argues that standing requires only, one, a real controversy that, two, will be
determined. Those are requirements for standing, but so is concrete injury, because if injury is only
hypothetical, there is no real controversy. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et al, NO. 031189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.