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.
18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Covell v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2008The Covell factors are the purpose of the cost: where the money raised is allocated and whether the cities pay the cost because they use the service. 127 Wn.2d at 879 . ¶39 The purpose of charging Lake Forest Park for hydrants is clearly to raise money, indicating a tax. 2008The Covell factors are the purpose of the cost: where the money raised is allocated and whether the cities pay the cost because they use the service. 127 Wn.2d at 879 . ¶39 The purpose of charging Lake Forest Park for hydrants is clearly to raise money, indicating a tax. | 4 | 9 |
Okeson v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2008“A city could then avoid the constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a ‘fire department fee’ or a ‘police fee.’ ” Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 552 . ¶[15 As a threshold matter, the County asks this court to consider, before engaging in a Covell analysis, whether Teter v. Clark County, 104 Wn.2d 227, 228 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), is dispositive on the issue. 2008“A city could then avoid the constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a ‘fire department fee’ or a ‘police fee.’ ” Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 552 . ¶[15 As a threshold matter, the County asks this court to consider, before engaging in a Covell analysis, whether Teter v. Clark County, 104 Wn.2d 227, 228 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), is dispositive on the issue. | 2 | 5 |
Okeson v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2008"A city could then avoid the constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a `fire department fee' or a `police fee.'" Okeson, 150 Wash.2d at 552 , 78 P.3d 1279 . *382 ¶ 15 As a threshold matter, the County asks this court to consider, before engaging in a Covell analysis, whether Teter v. Clark County, 104 Wash.2d 227, 228 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), is dispositive on the issue. 2008"A city could then avoid the constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a `fire department fee' or a `police fee.'" Okeson, 150 Wash.2d at 552 , 78 P.3d 1279 . *382 ¶ 15 As a threshold matter, the County asks this court to consider, before engaging in a Covell analysis, whether Teter v. Clark County, 104 Wash.2d 227, 228 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), is dispositive on the issue. | 2 | 4 |
Dean v. Lehmangreen2 sentences2017Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree with the majority that Covell is helpful and dispositive in this case involving alleged regulatory fees. 2017Generally, a "regulation" governs conduct and may incidentally generate revenue, see id. at 551-52 (citing Samis, 143 Wn.2d at 805), Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree wit | 2 | 4 |
Franks & Son, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Franks & Son, 136 Wn.2d at 750-51 (applying Covell test to Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission charge to determine whether it was a tax or a regulatory fee); Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 27-28 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001) (applying Covell test to Washington State Department of Corrections charge to determine whether it was a tax). 2012See, e.g., Franks & Son, 136 Wash.2d at 750-51, 966 P.2d 1232 (applying Covell test to Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission charge to determine whether it was a tax or a regulatory fee); Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 27-28 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001) (applying Covell test to Washington State Department of Corrections charge to determine whether it was a tax). [4] There is one possible exception. | 2 | 2 |
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Id. ¶63 Applying the Covell factors to this case leaves no doubt that the 1-1183 “license issuance fees” are taxes. 2012Id. ¶63 Applying the Covell factors to this case leaves no doubt that the 1-1183 “license issuance fees” are taxes. | 2 | 2 |
Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lakegreen2 sentences2017Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree with the majority that Covell is helpful and dispositive in this case involving alleged regulatory fees. 2017Generally, a "regulation" governs conduct and may incidentally generate revenue, see id. at 551-52 (citing Samis, 143 Wn.2d at 805), Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree wit | 1 | 3 |
Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lakegreen2 sentences2017Generally, a "regulation" governs conduct and may incidentally generate revenue, see id. at 551-52 (citing Samis, 143 Wn.2d at 805), Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree wit 2004Samis, 143 Wash.2d at 804 n. 8, 23 P.3d 477 . [11] In Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 105 Wash.2d 288, 299-300 , 714 P.2d 1163 (1986) (" Hillis Homes II "), a case decided before the development of the three-part Covell test, the Court found a water system connection charge to be valid as part of a plan to "`regulate and control the use [and] distribution' of water" (quoting RCW 54.16.030). | 1 | 2 |
Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1green2 sentences2004In Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 105 Wn.2d 288, 299-300 , 714 P.2d 1163 (1986) (Hillis Homes II), a case decided before the development of the three-part Covell test, the court found a water system connection charge to be valid as part of a plan to “ ‘regulate and control the use [and] distribution’ of water” (quoting ROW 54.16.030). 2004In Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 105 Wn.2d 288, 299-300 , 714 P.2d 1163 (1986) (Hillis Homes II), a case decided before the development of the three-part Covell test, the court found a water system connection charge to be valid as part of a plan to “ ‘regulate and control the use [and] distribution’ of water” (quoting ROW 54.16.030). | 1 | 2 |
Lane v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2016See Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875, 882 , 194 P.3d 977 (2008). 2016See Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875, 882 , 194 P.3d 977 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences2016See Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875, 882 , 194 P.3d 977 (2008). 2016See Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875, 882 , 194 P.3d 977 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King Countygreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 808 , 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (credit enhancement charge); Arborwood Idaho, LLC v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 371 , 89 P.3d 217 (2004) (ambulance charge); Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.2d 540, 553 , 78 P.3d 1279 (2003) (streetlight charge). ¶20 This test has been useful as a tool to discover whether certain charges are actually taxes that have been disguised as fees. 2016See, e.g., Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 808 , 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (credit enhancement charge); Arborwood Idaho, LLC v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 371 , 89 P.3d 217 (2004) (ambulance charge); Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.2d 540, 553 , 78 P.3d 1279 (2003) (streetlight charge). ¶20 This test has been useful as a tool to discover whether certain charges are actually taxes that have been disguised as fees. | 1 | 1 |
Franks & Son, Inc. v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Franks & Son, 136 Wash.2d at 750-51, 966 P.2d 1232 (applying Covell test to Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission charge to determine whether it was a tax or a regulatory fee); Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 27-28 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001) (applying Covell test to Washington State Department of Corrections charge to determine whether it was a tax). [4] There is one possible exception. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teter v. Clark County
green
2 sentences2008“A city could then avoid the constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a ‘fire department fee’ or a ‘police fee.’ ” Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 552 . ¶[15 As a threshold matter, the County asks this court to consider, before engaging in a Covell analysis, whether Teter v. Clark County, 104 Wn.2d 227, 228 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), is dispositive on the issue. 2008“A city could then avoid the constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a ‘fire department fee’ or a ‘police fee.’ ” Okeson, 150 Wn.2d at 552 . ¶[15 As a threshold matter, the County asks this court to consider, before engaging in a Covell analysis, whether Teter v. Clark County, 104 Wn.2d 227, 228 , 704 P.2d 1171 (1985), is dispositive on the issue. | 4 | 2008–2017 |
Dean v. Lehman
green
2 sentences2017Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree with the majority that Covell is helpful and dispositive in this case involving alleged regulatory fees. 2017Generally, a "regulation" governs conduct and may incidentally generate revenue, see id. at 551-52 (citing Samis, 143 Wn.2d at 805), Watson et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 93723-1 (Gonzalez, J., concurring) whereas a "tax" generates revenue and may incidentally govern conduct, see id. at 551 (citing Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12, 25 , 18 P.3d 523 (2001)). 1 The majority applies Covell's three-factor test2 to determine if the City correctly labeled the Ordinance a "tax." While I agree with the dissent that the Covell test may not be an adequate test in all preemption cases, I ultimately agree wit | 4 | 2012–2017 |
Arborwood Idaho, L.L.C. v. City of Kennewick
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 808 , 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (credit enhancement charge); Arborwood Idaho, LLC v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 371 , 89 P.3d 217 (2004) (ambulance charge); Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.2d 540, 553 , 78 P.3d 1279 (2003) (streetlight charge). ¶20 This test has been useful as a tool to discover whether certain charges are actually taxes that have been disguised as fees. 2008“The third factor is whether there is a direct relationship between the fee charged and the service received by those who pay the fee or between the fee charged and the burden produced by the fee payer.” Arborwood, 151 Wn.2d at 372-73 . | 3 | 2008–2016 |
Arborwood Idaho v. City of Kennewick
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 808 , 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (credit enhancement charge); Arborwood Idaho, LLC v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 371 , 89 P.3d 217 (2004) (ambulance charge); Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.2d 540, 553 , 78 P.3d 1279 (2003) (streetlight charge). ¶20 This test has been useful as a tool to discover whether certain charges are actually taxes that have been disguised as fees. 2008"The second factor is whether the money collected must be allocated only to the authorized purpose." Arborwood, 151 Wash.2d at 372 , 89 P.3d 217 . | 2 | 2008–2016 |
City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive Dow Constantine
green
2 sentences2019Covell, 111 Wn.2d at 879. 12 King County v. King County Water Districts et al., No. 96360-6 are too limited" and "not entirely helpful" when the issue is simply whether a charge is a tax or not, as opposed to whether the charge is either a tax or a regulatory fee. 187 Wn.2d at 299-300 . 2019Covell, 111 Wn.2d at 879. 12 King County v. King County Water Districts et al., No. 96360-6 are too limited" and "not entirely helpful" when the issue is simply whether a charge is a tax or not, as opposed to whether the charge is either a tax or a regulatory fee. 187 Wn.2d at 299-300 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Branson v. Port of Seattle
green
2 sentences2016As we have previously pointed out, "municipalities may charge fees that are not purely regulatory in nature." See Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wn.2d 862 , 874 n.5, 101 P.3d 67 (2004) (citing Spitzer, supra, at 343-49). 2016As we have previously pointed out, "municipalities may charge fees that are not purely regulatory in nature." See Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wn.2d 862 , 874 n.5, 101 P.3d 67 (2004) (citing Spitzer, supra, at 343-49). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Branson v. Port of Seattle
green
2 sentences2016As we have previously pointed out, "municipalities may charge fees that are not purely regulatory in nature." See Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wn.2d 862 , 874 n.5, 101 P.3d 67 (2004) (citing Spitzer, supra, at 343-49). 2016As we have previously pointed out, "municipalities may charge fees that are not purely regulatory in nature." See Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wn.2d 862 , 874 n.5, 101 P.3d 67 (2004) (citing Spitzer, supra, at 343-49). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Amalgamated Transit v. State
green
2 sentences2012It reflects commonly held understandings, as we held in Amalgamated Transit. 142 Wash.2d at 220-21, 226 , 11 P.3d 762 , 27 P.3d 608 . 2012It reflects commonly held understandings, as we held in Amalgamated Transit. 142 Wash.2d at 220-21, 226 , 11 P.3d 762 , 27 P.3d 608 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.