party wishing challenge (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

party wishing challenge in Washington

5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp.green
wash · 2000 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013“A party wishing to challenge actions under SEPA must meet a two-part standing test: (1) the alleged endangered interest must fall within the zone of interests protected by SEPA, and (2) the party must allege an injury in fact.” Kucera v. Dep’t of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200 , 212, 995 P.2d 63 (2000). ¶27 Damage to elements of the environment aims at the core of those interests protected by SEPA.

2013“A party wishing to challenge actions under SEPA must meet a two-part standing test: (1) the alleged endangered interest must fall within the zone of interests protected by SEPA, and (2) the party must allege an injury in fact.” Kucera v. Dep’t of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200 , 212, 995 P.2d 63 (2000). ¶27 Damage to elements of the environment aims at the core of those interests protected by SEPA.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Leavitt v. Jefferson County green
washctapp · 1994
2 sentences

2000Leavitt v. Jefferson County, 74 Wash.App. 668, 678-79 , 875 P.2d 681 (1994).

2000Leavitt v. Jefferson County, 74 Wn.

22000–2000
Trepanier v. City of Everett green
washctapp · 1992
1 sentence

1994Trepanier v. Everett, 64 Wn.

11994–1994
Waterford Place Condominium Ass'n v. City of Seattle green
washctapp · 1990
1 sentence

1993App. 39 , 791 P.2d 908 , review denied, 115 Wn.2d 1019 (1990), the Court of Appeals addressed this part of the SEPA appeal statute and concluded that a party wishing to challenge government action must file a lawsuit within the local time limits prescribed for the underlying government action and then has up to 30 days to amend or supplement its claim to include SEPA issues. 5 The Superior Court relied on Waterford to conclude that the neighbors had not timely filed for *253 judicial review.

11993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.031 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 5 (1993–2013) AL 5 (2008–2025) KS 4 (2015–2022) TX 3 (2018–2024) CA 3 (2004–2014) LA 3 (2014–2017) TN 3 (2000–2022) GA 2 (1997–2011) IL 2 (1988–2021) MO 2 (2017–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check