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.
8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2002C&G argues that the court should determine the meaning of the words “any withdrawal” from standard dictionary definitions, and that “any” means “every” and “all.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1986); see State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 271 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991); State ex rel. 2002C&G argues that the court should determine the meaning of the words “any withdrawal” from standard dictionary definitions, and that “any” means “every” and “all.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1986); see State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 271 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991); State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CLEAN v. State
green
2 sentences2014The manifest purpose of the provision “ ‘is to prevent state funds from being used to benefit private interests where the public interest is not primarily served.’ ” CLEAN v. State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). ¶49 No unconstitutional gift of public property occurs when funds are expended in carrying out a fundamental purpose of government. 2014Unconstitutional Gift of Public Funds Friends also challenges dismissal of its claim that the county's amendment of the deed restrictions in order to permit construction of ingress/egress for Star Saylor's development constitutes a gift of county funds to the developer in violation of article VIII, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which provides: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor a | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree
green
2 sentences2014Unconstitutional Gift of Public Funds Friends also challenges dismissal of its claim that the county's amendment of the deed restrictions in order to permit construction of ingress/egress for Star Saylor's development constitutes a gift of county funds to the developer in violation of article VIII, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which provides: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor a 2014Unconstitutional Gift of Public Funds Friends also challenges dismissal of its claim that the county's amendment of the deed restrictions in order to permit construction of ingress/egress for Star Saylor's development constitutes a gift of county funds to the developer in violation of article VIII, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which provides: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor a | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Clean v. State
green
2 sentences2014The manifest purpose of the provision “ ‘is to prevent state funds from being used to benefit private interests where the public interest is not primarily served.’ ” CLEAN v. State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). ¶49 No unconstitutional gift of public property occurs when funds are expended in carrying out a fundamental purpose of government. 2014Unconstitutional Gift of Public Funds Friends also challenges dismissal of its claim that the county's amendment of the deed restrictions in order to permit construction of ingress/egress for Star Saylor's development constitutes a gift of county funds to the developer in violation of article VIII, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which provides: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor a | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Valley View Industrial Park v. City of Redmond
red
2 sentences2005Id. 16 Nor is a direct judicial appeal the exclusive remedy. ¶39 The majority asserts, “In the same cases in which we have held that special assessments made in excess of special benefits constitute a taking, we have just as clearly stated that such challenges must be made pursuant to statutory procedure unless a jurisdictional defect exists,” and, “In over 100 years of precedent, we have clearly held that the statutory procedure for challenging special assessments is the exclusive means for attacking assessments as excessive or otherwise incorrect.” Majority at 236-37. 2005Id. [4] Nor is a direct judicial appeal the exclusive remedy. ¶ 39 The majority asserts, "In the same cases in which we have held that special assessments made in excess of special benefits constitute a taking, we have just as clearly stated that such challenges must be made pursuant to statutory procedure unless a jurisdictional defect exists," and, "In over 100 years of precedent, we have clearly held that the statutory procedure for challenging special assessments is the exclusive means for attacking assessments as excessive or otherwise incorrect." Majority at 332. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Pleas v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences2004The Developer requested reconsideration, citing Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794 , 774 P.2d 1158 (1989) and arguing discovery was needed to support its tortious interference claim. 2004The Developer requested reconsideration, citing Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794 , 774 P.2d 1158 (1989) and arguing discovery was needed to support its tortious interference claim. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. City of Bothell
green
1 sentence2014A project or program “must be presumed constitutionally valid, and the burden of overcoming that presumption lies with those challenging [the public entity’s] authority.” Id. ¶50 Friends’ complaint includes the following allegations (among others) in support of its contention that amendment of the deed restrictions in order to permit construction of ingress/egress for Star Saylor’s development constitutes a gift of county funds to the developer in violation of article VIII, section 7 of the Washington Constitution: 23. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.