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.
15 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sierra Club v. John O. Marsh, Jr.green2 sentences2000RCW 43.21C.010(2); RCW 43.21C.020; ASARCO Inc., 92 Wash.2d at 707 , 601 P.2d 501 ; Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 490 , 513 P.2d 36 , 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (1973); see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500-01, 504 (1st Cir.1989) (harm at stake under NEPA claim is harm to the environment). 2000RCW 43.21C.010(2); RCW 43.21C.020; Asarco Inc., 92 Wn.2d at 707 ; Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 82 Wn.2d 475, 490 , 513 P.2d 36 , 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (1973); see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500-01, 504 (1st Cir. 1989) (harm at stake under NEPA claim is harm to the environment). | 2 | 2 |
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecologygreen2 sentences1997See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecology, 86 Wn.2d 310, 314 , 545 P.2d 5 (1976). 1997See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecology, 86 Wn.2d 310, 314 , 545 P.2d 5 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston Countygreen2 sentences2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). 2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). | 1 | 2 |
Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Department of Ecologygreen2 sentences1997Dioxin I, 119 Wn.2d at 764-66 . 1997Dioxin I, 119 Wash.2d at 764-66, 837 P.2d 1007 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Grays Harbor Countygreen2 sentences2022See Grays Harbor County, 122 Wn.2d at 251 . 2022See Grays Harbor County, 122 Wn.2d at 251 . | 1 | 1 |
Grays Harbor Paper Co. v. Grays Harbor Countygreen1 sentence2015See Grays Harbor County, 74 Wn.2d at 73 ; Rosling v. Seattle Bldg. and Constr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PT Air Watchers v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences2026Id. at 930 . 2026Id. at 930 . | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Noel v. Cole
green
2 sentences2010Noel, 98 Wn.2d at 381 . 2010Noel, 98 Wash.2d at 381 , 655 P.2d 245 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition
green
2 sentences2000RCW 43.21C.010(2); RCW 43.21C.020; ASARCO Inc., 92 Wash.2d at 707 , 601 P.2d 501 ; Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 490 , 513 P.2d 36 , 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (1973); see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500-01, 504 (1st Cir.1989) (harm at stake under NEPA claim is harm to the environment). 2000RCW 43.21C.010(2); RCW 43.21C.020; ASARCO Inc., 92 Wash.2d at 707 , 601 P.2d 501 ; Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 490 , 513 P.2d 36 , 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (1973); see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500-01, 504 (1st Cir.1989) (harm at stake under NEPA claim is harm to the environment). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Electric Lightwave, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission
green
2 sentences2000Because "[w]e do not rely on cases that fail to specifically raise or decide an issue," In re Registration of Electric Lightwave, Inc., 123 Wash.2d 530, 541 , 869 P.2d 1045 (1994), these cases cannot be *74 said to stand for the proposition that injunction relief is mandated following a SEPA violation. 2000Because "[w]e do not rely on cases that fail to specifically raise or decide an issue," In re Registration of Electric Lightwave, Inc., 123 Wash.2d 530, 541 , 869 P.2d 1045 (1994), these cases cannot be *74 said to stand for the proposition that injunction relief is mandated following a SEPA violation. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). 2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Sisley v. San Juan County
green
2 sentences2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). 2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Board
green
2 sentences2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). 2000See also Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEFA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlays preexisting requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83 , 569 P.2d 712 (1977) (SEPA supplements the permit system of the SMA). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Leavitt v. Jefferson County
green
2 sentences2000The injury in fact element is satisfied when a plaintiff alleges the challenged action will cause "specific and perceptible harm." Leavitt, 74 Wash.App. at 679 , 875 P.2d 681 . 2000The injury in fact element is satisfied when a plaintiff alleges the challenged action will cause "specific and perceptible harm." Leavitt, 74 Wash.App. at 679 , 875 P.2d 681 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000RCW 43.21C.010(2); RCW 43.21C.020; ASARCO Inc., 92 Wash.2d at 707 , 601 P.2d 501 ; Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 490 , 513 P.2d 36 , 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (1973); see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500-01, 504 (1st Cir.1989) (harm at stake under NEPA claim is harm to the environment). 2000RCW 43.21C.010(2); RCW 43.21C.020; ASARCO Inc., 92 Wash.2d at 707 , 601 P.2d 501 ; Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 490 , 513 P.2d 36 , 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (1973); see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500-01, 504 (1st Cir.1989) (harm at stake under NEPA claim is harm to the environment). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County
green
1 sentence2024In Town of Woodway, this court stated that boards have the ability to review plans for both GMA and SEPA violations, but the boards are limited to two remedies—noncompliance or invalidity. 180 Wn.2d at 178 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Boss v. Department of Transportation
neutral
2 sentences2022Id. at 547 . 2022Id. at 547 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of Vancouver
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 817-18 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Portage Bay-Roanoke Park Community Council v. Shorelines Hearings Board
green
2 sentences2000Leschi Improvement Council v. State Highway Comm'n, 84 Wash.2d 271, 276 , 525 P.2d 774 (1974) (Emphasis added). [28] See also: Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wash.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEPA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlay pre-existing requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wash.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley 2000Leschi Improvement Council v. State Highway Comm'n, 84 Wash.2d 271, 276 , 525 P.2d 774 (1974) (Emphasis added). [28] See also: Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wash.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEPA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlay pre-existing requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wash.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State Highway Commission
green
2 sentences2000Leschi Improvement Council v. State Highway Comm'n, 84 Wash.2d 271, 276 , 525 P.2d 774 (1974) (Emphasis added). [28] See also: Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wash.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEPA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlay pre-existing requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wash.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley 2000Leschi Improvement Council v. State Highway Comm'n, 84 Wash.2d 271, 276 , 525 P.2d 774 (1974) (Emphasis added). [28] See also: Natural Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wash.2d 656, 666 , 601 P.2d 494 (1979) (SEPA is a supplement to the statutory authority of each agency); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 59, 65 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (SEPA adds to authority and overlay pre-existing requirement); City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wash.2d 856, 865 , 586 P.2d 470 (1978) (SEPA analysis required in addition to consideration of factors in annexation statute); Sisley | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hunt v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2000Portage Bay, 92 Wash.2d at 5-6 , 593 P.2d 151 . [31] See e.g., Hunt v. Anderson, 30 Wash.App. 437 , 635 P.2d 156 (1981) (Also basing denial of the permit in part upon devaluation of neighboring property), citing Polygon, 90 Wash.2d 59 , 578 P.2d 1309 . [32] "A dock or pier is a platform structure extending from the shore and built to sit over and float upon the water. 2000Portage Bay, 92 Wash.2d at 5-6 , 593 P.2d 151 . [31] See e.g., Hunt v. Anderson, 30 Wash.App. 437 , 635 P.2d 156 (1981) (Also basing denial of the permit in part upon devaluation of neighboring property), citing Polygon, 90 Wash.2d 59 , 578 P.2d 1309 . [32] "A dock or pier is a platform structure extending from the shore and built to sit over and float upon the water. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McKee v. American Home Products Corp.
green
2 sentences1997E.g., McKee v. American Home Prods., Corp., 113 Wn.2d 701, 704 , 782 P.2d 1045 (1989) (court will not consider issues on appeal that are not supported by argument and citation to authority). 1997E.g., McKee v. American Home Prods., Corp., 113 Wn.2d 701, 704 , 782 P.2d 1045 (1989) (court will not consider issues on appeal that are not supported by argument and citation to authority). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.