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.
7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
VF Zahodiakin Engineering Corp. v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF SUMMITgreen2 sentences1999The plaintiff landowner is presumed to have known of the invalidity of the exception and to have acted at his peril. (quoting Zahodiakin Eng’g Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 8 N.J. 386, 396 , 86 A.2d 127 (1952)). 1999The plaintiff landowner is presumed to have known of the invalidity of the exception and to have acted at his peril. (quoting Zahodiakin Eng’g Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 8 N.J. 386, 396 , 86 A.2d 127 (1952)). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Mercer Island v. Steinmann
green
2 sentences2001The plaintiff landowner is presumed to have known of the invalidity of the exception and to have acted at his peril.” Id. at 483 (quoting V.F. 2001The plaintiff landowner is presumed to have known of the invalidity of the exception and to have acted at his peril." Id. at 483 , 513 P.2d 80 (quoting V.F. | 3 | 2001–2002 |
Manor v. Nestle Food Co.
green
2 sentences2004RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 447 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997). 2004RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Manor v. Nestle Food Co., *390 131 Wash.2d 439, 447 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Manor v. Nestle Food Co.
green
2 sentences2004RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 447 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997). 2004RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Manor v. Nestle Food Co., *390 131 Wash.2d 439, 447 , 932 P.2d 628 , 945 P.2d 1119 (1997). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Dykstra v. County of Skagit
green
2 sentences2002Dykstra, 97 Wn. 2002Dykstra, 97 Wash.App. at 677 , 985 P.2d 424 (quoting City of Mercer Island v. Steinmann, 9 Wash.App. 479, 483 , 513 P.2d 80 (1973)) (quoting V.F. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Buechel v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences1999In Buechel v. Department of Ecology, the Supreme Court cited Mercer Island with approval, stating: “The proper action on a land use decision cannot be foreclosed because of a possible past error in another case involving different property.” Buechel, 125 Wn.2d 196, 211 , 884 P.2d 910 (1994) (holding that Board’s denial of permit and variance, despite its previous grant of permit in similar situation, was not arbitrary and capricious). 1999In Buechel v. Department of Ecology, the Supreme Court cited Mercer Island with approval, stating: “The proper action on a land use decision cannot be foreclosed because of a possible past error in another case involving different property.” Buechel, 125 Wn.2d 196, 211 , 884 P.2d 910 (1994) (holding that Board’s denial of permit and variance, despite its previous grant of permit in similar situation, was not arbitrary and capricious). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.