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.
16 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pavlina v. City of Vancouver
neutral
2 sentences2016Pavlina v. Citv of Vancouver. 122 Wn. 2014Pavlina v. City of Vancouver, 122 Wn. | 8 | 2007–2016 |
City of University Place v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2010City of University Place v. McGuire, 144 Wn.2d 640, 647 , 30 P.3d 453 (2001); RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b)-(d). 2010City of University Place v. McGuire, 144 Wn.2d 640, 647 , 30 P.3d 453 (2001); RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b)-(d). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Donald And Kathleen Miller v. City Of Sammamish
neutral
1 sentence2026Miller v. City of Sammamish, 9 Wn. App. 2d 861 , 870, 447 P.3d 593 (2019); RCW 36.70C.120(1). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N
green
2 sentences2023Pinecrest Homeowners Ass’n v. Cloninger & Associates, 151 Wn.2d 279, 288 , 87 P.3d 1176 (2004). 2023Pinecrest Homeowners Ass’n v. Cloninger & Associates, 151 Wn.2d 279, 288 , 87 P.3d 1176 (2004). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lauer v. Pierce County
green
2 sentences2020Standard of Review The Land Use Petition Act3 governs review of land use decisions.4 Land use decisions are “final determination[s] by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination,” like the hearing examiner, and include “interpretative or declaratory decision[s] regarding the 3Ch. 36.70C RCW. ~ Lauer v. Pierce County, 173 Wn.2d 242, 252 , 267 P.3d 988 (2011). -6- application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules.”5 This court’s review of these decisions is limited to review of the record before the hearing examine 2020Standard of Review The Land Use Petition Act3 governs review of land use decisions.4 Land use decisions are “final determination[s] by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination,” like the hearing examiner, and include “interpretative or declaratory decision[s] regarding the 3Ch. 36.70C RCW. ~ Lauer v. Pierce County, 173 Wn.2d 242, 252 , 267 P.3d 988 (2011). -6- application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules.”5 This court’s review of these decisions is limited to review of the record before the hearing examine | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima
green
2 sentences2013Appellate review of the superior court's determination under RCW 35.44.250 "should not be an independent consideration of the merits of the issue but rather a consideration and evaluation ofthe decision-making process."21 On appeal, we 18 Jd at 858-59. 19 89 Wn.2d 855, 859 , 576 P.2d 888 (1978) (quoting Cammack v. Port Angeles, 15Wn.App. 188, 196, 548 P.2d 571 (1976)). 20 Id ("[W]e emphasize that the statute [RCW 35.44.250] provides that where such fundamental error exists the court is limited to nullification or modification only of those parcel assessments before it."). 21 Id. at 859-60. 10 2013Appellate review of the superior court's determination under RCW 35.44.250 "should not be an independent consideration of the merits of the issue but rather a consideration and evaluation ofthe decision-making process."21 On appeal, we 18 Jd at 858-59. 19 89 Wn.2d 855, 859 , 576 P.2d 888 (1978) (quoting Cammack v. Port Angeles, 15Wn.App. 188, 196, 548 P.2d 571 (1976)). 20 Id ("[W]e emphasize that the statute [RCW 35.44.250] provides that where such fundamental error exists the court is limited to nullification or modification only of those parcel assessments before it."). 21 Id. at 859-60. 10 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cammack v. City of Port Angeles
green
1 sentence2013Appellate review of the superior court's determination under RCW 35.44.250 "should not be an independent consideration of the merits of the issue but rather a consideration and evaluation ofthe decision-making process."21 On appeal, we 18 Jd at 858-59. 19 89 Wn.2d 855, 859 , 576 P.2d 888 (1978) (quoting Cammack v. Port Angeles, 15Wn.App. 188, 196, 548 P.2d 571 (1976)). 20 Id ("[W]e emphasize that the statute [RCW 35.44.250] provides that where such fundamental error exists the court is limited to nullification or modification only of those parcel assessments before it."). 21 Id. at 859-60. 10 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund v. City of Seattle
green
1 sentence2012Thornton Creek Legal Def Fund v. City of Seattle, 113 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Grader v. City of Lynnwood
green
1 sentence1993Grader v. Lynnwood, 45 Wn. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.
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.