12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edison Electric Institute v. Environmental Protection Agencygreen2 sentences2015The Edison Electric court clearly contemplated that a failed WET test would constitute a permit violation, see 391 F.3d at 1271 , but rejected concerns similar to BP’s, holding EPA’s statistical safeguards adequate to protect against arbitrary violations. 2015The Edison Electric court also contemplated that a single failed WET test would constitute a permit violation and potentially subject the permittee to enforcement action. 391 F.3d at 1271 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carvergreen1 sentence2023See State v. Carver, 37 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Standard Mining & Development Corp. v. City of Auburn
green
2 sentences2013The court reasoned, “ ‘[A] board with authority to grant a special permit has inherent power to attach conditions designed to carry out the purposes for which the permit requirement was imposed.’ ” Id. (quoting 3 Robert M. 1995Standard Mining, 82 Wn.2d at 323 . | 2 | 1995–2013 |
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences2008The court assured that requiring Ecology to appeal a local government’s jurisdictional decision under LUPA would not prevent Ecology “from taking action against a party who completely ignores the shoreline permitting process or one who obtains a permit and then proceeds to violate the conditions of the permit.” Samuel’s Furniture, 147 Wn.2d at 456 . 2008The court assured that requiring Ecology to appeal a local government's jurisdictional decision under LUPA would not prevent Ecology "from taking action against a party who completely ignores the shoreline permitting process or one who obtains a permit and then proceeds to violate the conditions of the permit." 147 Wash.2d at 456 , 54 P.3d 1194 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Ritchie v. Markley
green
2 sentences2007Ritchie v. Markley, 23 Wash.App. 569, 574 , 597 P.2d 449 (1979). 2007Ritchie v. Markley, 23 Wn. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Rhonda Ezell v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2020The ordinance addressed by 28 No. 53245-0-II the 7th Circuit in Ezell followed McDonald, and it imposed a permit requirement for handgun possession that compelled individuals to undergo one hour of training at a gun range. 651 F.3d at 689-90 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 577 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Peterson v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences1985Peterson v. Department of Ecology, 92 Wn.2d 306 , 596 P.2d 285 (1979). 1985Peterson v. Department of Ecology, 92 Wn.2d 306 , 596 P.2d 285 (1979). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.