Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2011 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Boardgreen2 sentences2011Our Supreme Court previously suggested that economic considerations cannot be outcome determinative because "[p]resumably, in the case of agricultural land, it will always be financially more lucrative to develop such land for uses more intense than agriculture." Redmond, 136 Wash.2d at 52 , 959 P.2d 1091 . ¶ 64 Moreover, the County's overtly heavy reliance on economic factors when deciding whether land has long-term agricultural commercial significance runs afoul of several of the GMA's planning goalsnamely, the County's duty to "designate and conserve agricultural lands." Soccer Fields, 142 2011Our Supreme Court previously suggested that economic considerations cannot be outcome determinative because "[p]resumably, in the case of agricultural land, it will always be financially more lucrative to develop such land for uses more intense than agriculture." Redmond, 136 Wash.2d at 52 , 959 P.2d 1091 . ¶ 64 Moreover, the County's overtly heavy reliance on economic factors when deciding whether land has long-term agricultural commercial significance runs afoul of several of the GMA's planning goalsnamely, the County's duty to "designate and conserve agricultural lands." Soccer Fields, 142 | 1 | 2 |
Letourneau v. STATE, DEPT. OF LICENSINGgreen2 sentences2008App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶15 Both parties acknowledge that “[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law.” Reply in Supp. of Pet. for Review at 11; Suppl. 2008App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶15 Both parties acknowledge that “[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law.” Reply in Supp. of Pet. for Review at 11; Suppl. | 1 | 2 |
Letourneau v. Department of Licensinggreen2 sentences2008Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash.2d 171, 181-82 , 930 P.2d 307 (1997); see also Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash.App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶ 15 Both parties acknowledge that "[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law." Reply in Support of Pet. for Rev. at 11; Suppl. 2008Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash.2d 171, 181-82 , 930 P.2d 307 (1997); see also Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash.App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶ 15 Both parties acknowledge that "[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law." Reply in Support of Pet. for Rev. at 11; Suppl. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
green
2 sentences2011Our Supreme Court previously suggested that economic considerations cannot be outcome determinative because "[p]resumably, in the case of agricultural land, it will always be financially more lucrative to develop such land for uses more intense than agriculture." Redmond, 136 Wash.2d at 52 , 959 P.2d 1091 . ¶ 64 Moreover, the County's overtly heavy reliance on economic factors when deciding whether land has long-term agricultural commercial significance runs afoul of several of the GMA's planning goalsnamely, the County's duty to "designate and conserve agricultural lands." Soccer Fields, 142 2011Our Supreme Court previously suggested that economic considerations cannot be outcome determinative because "[p]resumably, in the case of agricultural land, it will always be financially more lucrative to develop such land for uses more intense than agriculture." Redmond, 136 Wash.2d at 52 , 959 P.2d 1091 . ¶ 64 Moreover, the County's overtly heavy reliance on economic factors when deciding whether land has long-term agricultural commercial significance runs afoul of several of the GMA's planning goalsnamely, the County's duty to "designate and conserve agricultural lands." Soccer Fields, 142 | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co.
green
2 sentences2008Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash.2d 171, 181-82 , 930 P.2d 307 (1997); see also Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash.App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶ 15 Both parties acknowledge that "[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law." Reply in Support of Pet. for Rev. at 11; Suppl. 2008Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash.2d 171, 181-82 , 930 P.2d 307 (1997); see also Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash.App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶ 15 Both parties acknowledge that "[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law." Reply in Support of Pet. for Rev. at 11; Suppl. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Manor v. Nestle Food Co.
green
2 sentences2008In Wingert, we held that double damages under the WRA were appropriate based upon a WAC rule violation since “ ‘properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.’ ” 146 Wn.2d at 848 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 445 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997)). 2008In Wingert, we held that double damages under the WRA were appropriate based upon a WAC rule violation since “ ‘properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.’ ” 146 Wn.2d at 848 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 445 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997)). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Manor v. Nestle Food Co.
green
2 sentences2008In Wingert, we held that double damages under the WRA were appropriate based upon a WAC rule violation since “ ‘properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.’ ” 146 Wn.2d at 848 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 445 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997)). 2008In Wingert, we held that double damages under the WRA were appropriate based upon a WAC rule violation since “ ‘properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.’ ” 146 Wn.2d at 848 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 445 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997)). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
King County v. Central Puget Sound
green
2 sentences2011Our Supreme Court previously suggested that economic considerations cannot be outcome determinative because "[p]resumably, in the case of agricultural land, it will always be financially more lucrative to develop such land for uses more intense than agriculture." Redmond, 136 Wash.2d at 52 , 959 P.2d 1091 . ¶ 64 Moreover, the County's overtly heavy reliance on economic factors when deciding whether land has long-term agricultural commercial significance runs afoul of several of the GMA's planning goalsnamely, the County's duty to "designate and conserve agricultural lands." Soccer Fields, 142 2011Our Supreme Court previously suggested that economic considerations cannot be outcome determinative because "[p]resumably, in the case of agricultural land, it will always be financially more lucrative to develop such land for uses more intense than agriculture." Redmond, 136 Wash.2d at 52 , 959 P.2d 1091 . ¶ 64 Moreover, the County's overtly heavy reliance on economic factors when deciding whether land has long-term agricultural commercial significance runs afoul of several of the GMA's planning goalsnamely, the County's duty to "designate and conserve agricultural lands." Soccer Fields, 142 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Therefore, prior to their incorporation into the WAC, the agency guidelines from the policy statement were advisory only. [9] In Wingert, we held that double damages under the WRA were appropriate based upon a WAC rule violation since "`properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.'" 146 Wash.2d at 848, 50 P.3d 256 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wash.2d 439, 445 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997)). 2008Therefore, prior to their incorporation into the WAC, the agency guidelines from the policy statement were advisory only. [9] In Wingert, we held that double damages under the WRA were appropriate based upon a WAC rule violation since "`properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.'" 146 Wash.2d at 848, 50 P.3d 256 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wash.2d 439, 445 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co.
green
2 sentences2008Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash.2d 171, 181-82 , 930 P.2d 307 (1997); see also Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash.App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶ 15 Both parties acknowledge that "[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law." Reply in Support of Pet. for Rev. at 11; Suppl. 2008Magula v. Benton Franklin Title Co., 131 Wash.2d 171, 181-82 , 930 P.2d 307 (1997); see also Letourneau v. Dep't of Licensing, 131 Wash.App. 657, 665-66 , 128 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying the above guidelines to determine whether a WAC rule should apply retroactively). ¶ 15 Both parties acknowledge that "[a] regulation may be given retroactive effect where its purpose is to clarify rather than change the law." Reply in Support of Pet. for Rev. at 11; Suppl. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Anderson v. STATE, DSHS
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.