Is there any case law where a plaintiff has standing to bring an action alleging that they have been denied standing by the Court?

Also, a Maine case dealing with the standing of taxpayers to bring a bill against the corporate government observed that in the absence of statutory restrictions on standing, there is no substantial reason why such an action should not be brought, and that "[t]he court may be safely trusted to prevent the abuse of process in such cases." (Blodgett v. School Administrative District # 73 (Me.1972) 289 A.2d 407, 410.) The Maine court was not actually dealing with a claim of abuse of process, but its observation is pertinent here. The reason for allowing an action for abuse of process is partly that the court cannot control the misuse of its process for ulterior ends since it is not cognizant of the facts constituting the abuse, which often takes place outside the courtroom after the process has issued. But the kind of "abuse" we have when persons without standing intervene in lawsuits is well within the scope of the court's power to control. The court can readily [2 Cal.App.4th 532] either deny standing entirely, or it can allow intervention but control the scope of that intervention. Either way, there is nothing pernicious or beyond the scope of the court's control in the attempt to intervene by persons with questionable standing. Accordingly that attempt in itself need not give rise to tort remedies.