owner claim in Washington

2017App. 641, 647-48 , 849 P.2d 1276 (1993), a City alleging abandonment of a use must show "(a) an intention to abandon; and (b) an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use." Both have been shown in this case.

2001University Place must establish “ ‘(a)[a]n intention to abandon; and (b) an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use.’ ” Id. at 648 (quoting 8A Eugene McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.192 (3d ed. 1986)).

2012App. 498, 499, 505 , 3 P.3d 813 (2000) (remand for the Board to make a finding analogous to the criminal definition of “knowingly,” as stated in RCW 9A.08.010, that the owner of the bar knowingly allowed illegal drug activity on the premises). ¶21 Accordingly, because Dodge City is a corporation subject to civil penalties for chapter 66.44 RCW violations, and because the legislature has provided neither entrapment nor outrageous conduct as affirmative defenses available in civil enforcement proceedings, we hold that the ALJ did not err.

1991Kupka, 50 Wn.2d at 467 (citing Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 44 Wash. 239 , 87 P. 257 (1906)).

1991Kupka, 50 Wn.2d at 467 (citing Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 44 Wash. 239 , 87 P. 257 (1906)).

1991Kupka, 50 Wn.2d at 467 (citing Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 44 Wash. 239 , 87 P. 257 (1906)).

1965This trust relationship is limited to instances in which a lien “. . . might lawfully be filed upon the property of another This situation was covered in Seattle Ass’n of Credit Men v. Daniels, 15 Wn.2d 393 , 130 P.2d 892 , where we held that an assignee for the benefit of creditors is entitled to interpose the failure to give notice of the furnishing of materials to the owner as a defense to the assertion of an enforceable lien in a preference action.

1965This trust relationship is limited to instances in which a lien “. . . might lawfully be filed upon the property of another This situation was covered in Seattle Ass’n of Credit Men v. Daniels, 15 Wn.2d 393 , 130 P.2d 892 , where we held that an assignee for the benefit of creditors is entitled to interpose the failure to give notice of the furnishing of materials to the owner as a defense to the assertion of an enforceable lien in a preference action.

1957In re Klapproth v. Squier (1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430 , overruled our former decision In re McDuff v. Cranor (1953), 42 Wn. (2d) 488, 256 P. (2d) 293 , and held that RCW 9.92.010 is the applicable sentencing statute, rather than RCW 9.95.010 when no specific penalty is provided for the offense in question; here, the intentional taking of a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner is a violation of RCW 9.54.020.

1957In re Klapproth v. Squier (1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430 , overruled our former decision In re McDuff v. Cranor (1953), 42 Wn. (2d) 488, 256 P. (2d) 293 , and held that RCW 9.92.010 is the applicable sentencing statute, rather than RCW 9.95.010 when no specific penalty is provided for the offense in question; here, the intentional taking of a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner is a violation of RCW 9.54.020.

1952Christmas v. Russell, supra; In re Wood's Estate, 243 Pa. 211 , 89 Atl. 975 .

1952Christmas v. Russell, supra; In re Wood's Estate, 243 Pa. 211 , 89 Atl. 975 .

1946Cooley, Taxation (2d ed.), p. 405; Black, Tax Titles (2ded.), §112.’” In Napier v. Runkel, 9 Wn. (2d) 246, 114 P. (2d) 534 , 137 A. L.

1926Cooley, Taxation (2d ed.), p. 405;-Black, Tax Titles (2d ed.), §112.” See, also, Continental Distributing Co. v. Smith, supra, and National Bank of Commerce of Seattle v. Davies, 112 Wash. 106 , 191 Pac. 870 , and cases there cited.