In Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 166 Vt. 337, 341, 693 A.2d 1045, 1048 (1997), the Court explored in some detail the "constitutional" and "prudential" components of the standing doctrine. The issue, the Court emphasized, cannot be addressed without reference to " 'the specific common-law, statutory or constitutional claims that a party presents.' " Id. The Court examined, accordingly, the substance of the plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights claims, concluding that they implicated no legally protected right under the Constitution. The Court affirmed, therefore, the trial court's dismissal both on lack of standing and on the merits. See id. at 344, 693 A.2d at 1050 ("Although we affirm the dismissal based on lack of standing, we add that we do not believe the claim has merit under the Equal Protection Clause.").