KITSAP All. OF Prop. OWNERS v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 231 P.3d 166 (Wash. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
KITSAP All. OF Prop. OWNERS v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 231 P.3d 166 (Wash. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a prior restraint is an official restriction imposed on speech or another form of expression in advance of its occurrence.”
63 citation events (63 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Annemarie Catlett v. Robert Lee Teel (washctapp, 2020-12-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Annemarie Catlett v. Robert Lee Teel
Wash. Ct. App. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a prior restraint is an official restriction imposed on speech or another form of expression in advance of its occurrence.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Rustina Guthrie, App. v. Joseph Zaratkiewicz, Resp.
Wash. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a prior restraint seeks to prohibit future speech rather than to punish speech that has occurred.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gail Bierman and Beth Weier v. Scott Weier and Author Solutions, Inc. (2×)
Iowa · 2013 · confidence medium
Reg’l Library Dist., 168 Wash.2d 789 , 231 P.3d 166, 172 (2010) (under the state abuse clause “no greater protection [than under the First Amendment] is afforded to obscenity, speech in nonpublic forums, commercial speech, and false or defamatory statements”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KITSAP ALLIANCE OF PROPERTY OWNERS, William Palmer and Ron Ross, Respondents,
v.
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, Futurewise, Hood Canal Environmental Council, Kitsap Citizens for Responsible Planning, Respondents, Kitsap County, Petitioner, Judith Krigsman, Jim Trainer, West Sound Conservation Council, Respondents.
83883-6.
Washington Supreme Court.
Apr 28, 2010.
231 P.3d 166
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Washington (2)

ORDER

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Alexander, Chambers, Fairhurst and Stephens (Justice Sanders sat for Justice Chambers), at its April 27, 2010, Motion Calendar, considered whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b), and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the Petition for Review is granted and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals Division Two for reconsideration in light of Engrossed House Bill 1653 (Chapter 107, Laws of 2010). The Respondent Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners' motion to strike supplemental memorandum and the Petitioner's motion to strike portions of Respondent's supplemental brief are passed to the Court of Appeals for determination.

For the Court

/s/MADSEN, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE