With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 470, 475 (Iowa 2004)). While these two elements frame the essence of our standing doctrine, they were derived from earlier cases involving challenges to administrative agency action and do not fully capture the later development of our doctrine, especially as to actions to enforce public constitutional values by private individuals. See City of Des Moines v. PERB, 275 N.W.2d 753, 759 (Iowa 1979) (adopting the twofold test of standing derived from administrative agency cases involving statutes modeled after the Model State Administrative Procedure Act); John C. Reitz, Standing to Raise Constitutional Issues, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 437, 442-43 (2002). We have frequently supplemented and elaborated on these elements by drawing on the federal law on standing. See Alons, 698 N.W.2d at 869 (<HOLDING>); Sanchez v. State, 692 N.W.2d 812, 821 (Iowa

A: recognizing that although federal precedent was not binding it was persuasive authority
B: recognizing federal authority on standing to be persuasive
C: recognizing that unpublished decisions issued after january 1 1996 are not controlling precedent but may be considered persuasive authority
D: holding the florida appellate courts are not bound by federal precedent which is persuasive not binding authority
B.