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 1917–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Shilshole Avenuegreen2 sentences2017App. at 941 (citing In re Shilshole Ave., 85 Wash. 522, 537 , 148 P. 178 (1915) (“the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special assessments [is] that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no special benefit upon the property assessed.”)). 2014The court emphasized that “the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special assessments [is] that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no special benefit upon the property assessed.” Shilshole Ave., 85 Wash. at 537. ¶34 The same principle was more obliquely treated in Morse v. Wise, 37 Wn.2d 806 , 226 P.2d 214 (1951). | 2 | 7 |
Heavens v. KING CTY. RURAL LIBR. DIST.green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Heavens v. King County Rural Library Dist., 66 Wn.2d 558 , 564, 404 P.2d 453 (1965) (“ ‘It is the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special assessments that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no special benefit upon the property assessed. 2005See, e.g., Heavens v. King County Rural Library Dist., 66 Wn.2d 558 , 564, 404 P.2d 453 (1965) (“ ‘It is the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special assessments that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no special benefit upon the property assessed. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morse v. Wise
green
2 sentences2014The court emphasized that “the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special assessments [is] that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no special benefit upon the property assessed.” Shilshole Ave., 85 Wash. at 537. ¶34 The same principle was more obliquely treated in Morse v. Wise, 37 Wn.2d 806 , 226 P.2d 214 (1951). 2014The court emphasized that “the basic principle and the very life of the doctrine of special assessments [is] that there can be no special assessment to pay for a thing which has conferred no special benefit upon the property assessed.” Shilshole Ave., 85 Wash. at 537. ¶34 The same principle was more obliquely treated in Morse v. Wise, 37 Wn.2d 806 , 226 P.2d 214 (1951). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Metropolitan Building Co. v. City of Seattle
neutral
2 sentences1917To assess property for a thing which did not benefit it would be pro tanto the taking of private property for a public use without compensation, hence unconstitutional.” And in former cases, such as In re Leary Avenue, 77 Wash. 399 , 138 Pac. 8 , and In re Fifth Avenue and Fifth Avenue South, 66 Wash. 327 , 119 Pac. 852 , it was positively announced as “the duty of the court to inquire whether the property is assessed more or less than it is specially benefited.” Section 7892-13 of the statute under which these proceedings are maintained provides: “All property included within said limits of s 1917To assess property for a thing which did not benefit it would be pro tanto the taking of private property for a public use without compensation, hence unconstitutional.” And in former cases, such as In re Leary Avenue, 77 Wash. 399 , 138 Pac. 8 , and In re Fifth Avenue and Fifth Avenue South, 66 Wash. 327 , 119 Pac. 852 , it was positively announced as “the duty of the court to inquire whether the property is assessed more or less than it is specially benefited.” Section 7892-13 of the statute under which these proceedings are maintained provides: “All property included within said limits of s | 1 | 1917–1917 |
In re Leary Avenue
neutral
2 sentences1917To assess property for a thing which did not benefit it would be pro tanto the taking of private property for a public use without compensation, hence unconstitutional.” And in former cases, such as In re Leary Avenue, 77 Wash. 399 , 138 Pac. 8 , and In re Fifth Avenue and Fifth Avenue South, 66 Wash. 327 , 119 Pac. 852 , it was positively announced as “the duty of the court to inquire whether the property is assessed more or less than it is specially benefited.” Section 7892-13 of the statute under which these proceedings are maintained provides: “All property included within said limits of s 1917To assess property for a thing which did not benefit it would be pro tanto the taking of private property for a public use without compensation, hence unconstitutional.” And in former cases, such as In re Leary Avenue, 77 Wash. 399 , 138 Pac. 8 , and In re Fifth Avenue and Fifth Avenue South, 66 Wash. 327 , 119 Pac. 852 , it was positively announced as “the duty of the court to inquire whether the property is assessed more or less than it is specially benefited.” Section 7892-13 of the statute under which these proceedings are maintained provides: “All property included within said limits of s | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.