Center v. Pollution Control Hearings Board (1997)
green
· 96 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 18 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199720112026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Within DSHS, the activities identified as exempt are all actions under programs it administers, and Citizens’ argument to the contrary fails. ¶16 Moreover, Citizens’ argument runs afoul oí Dioxin’s prohibition against “as-applied” challenges to categorically exempt actions. 131 Wn.2d at 356 (“SEPA review is not required for an individual action that is properly characterized as exempt under a valid regulation.”), In Dioxin, our Supreme Court considered whether the categorica…
“SEPA review is not required for an individual action that is properly characterized as exempt under a valid regulation.”
green
Overlake Fund v. Shorelines Hearings Board (1998)
The majority there reviewed the superior court's decision directly, even though the superior court was acting in an appellate capacity reviewing a legal conclusion of the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB). 131 Wash.2d at 349-50, 352, 365 , 932 P.2d 158 .
green
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp. (2000)
See majority at 71-72 (citing Downtown Traffic Planning Comm. v. Royer, 26 Wash.App. 156 , 612 P.2d 430 (1980), overruled on other grounds by Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash.2d 345, 360 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997); National Helicopter Corp. of Am. v. City of New York, 137 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.1998); National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Federal Aviation Admin., 998 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir.1993); Seattle Community Council Fed'n v. Federal Aviation Adm…
green
State v. Ford (2000)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 350 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997).
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 358 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997) (a commission’s final *907 report on proposed legislation, which was submitted to the [legislature with the bill, contributes to an understanding of legislative intent).” Yarmouth, 134 Wn.2d at 366-67 .
a commission’s final *907 report on proposed legislation, which was submitted to the [legislature with the bill, contributes to an understanding of legislative intent
green
South Tacoma Way, LLC v. State (2008)
See, e.g., Noel v. Cole, 98 Wash.2d 375, 381 , 655 P.2d 245 (1982), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Dioxin Ctr. v. Pollution Bd., 131 Wash.2d 345, 360 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997). [13] South Tacoma also argues that the policies behind the bona fide purchaser doctrine "give way to protection of the public interest" and, as a result, should not protect Sustainable.
green
Clallam County Citizens v. City of Port Angeles (2007)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash.2d 345, 352 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997); see also RICHARD L.
green
Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd. (2006)
See RCW 43.21C.031, [13] .110; see also Dioxin, 131 Wash.2d at 365 , 932 P.2d 158 . ¶ 20 SEPA also requires Ecology to promulgate a rule-based exception to otherwise SEPA-exempt government actions.
See RCW 43.21C.031, 13 .110; see also Dioxin, 131 Wn.2d at 365 . ¶20 SEPA also requires Ecology to promulgate a rule-based exception to otherwise SEPA-exempt government actions.
green
In re the Marriage of Litowitz (2002)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 350 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997); In re Det. of Swanson, 115 Wn.2d. 21, 24, 793 P.2d 962 (1990).
green
Eugster v. City of Spokane (2002)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr., 131 Wash.2d at 350 , 932 P.2d 158 .
green
Eugster v. City of Spokane (2002)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr., 131 Wn.2d at 350 .
See Dioxin/ Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 350 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997).
green
City of Raymond v. Runyon (1998)
See Dioxin/ Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 351 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997).
green
EQUIPTO DIV. AURORA EQUIP. v. Yarmouth (1998)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash.2d 345, 358 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997) (a commission's final report on proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Legislature with the bill, contributes to an understanding of legislative intent).
a commission's final report on proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Legislature with the bill, contributes to an understanding of legislative intent
green
Equipto Division Aurora Equipment Co. v. Yarmouth (1998)
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 358 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997) (a commission’s final report on proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Legislature with the bill, contributes to an understanding of legislative intent).
a commission’s final report on proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Legislature with the bill, contributes to an understanding of legislative intent
green
City of Seattle v. State (1997)
See, e.g., Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wash.2d 345, 352 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997).
green
City of Seattle v. State (1997)
See, e.g., Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 131 Wn.2d 345, 352 , 932 P.2d 158 (1997).