landowner challenge in Washington

2013Ed. 2d 677 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 114 S. Ct. 2309 , 129 L.

2013Ed. 2d 677 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 114 S. Ct. 2309 , 129 L.

2013In Koontz , the Court said that a landowner may challenge a government’s decision to deny a land use permit or condition approval of a land use permit on the payment of fees using the standards set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 , 107 S. Ct. 3141 , 97 L.

2013In Koontz , the Court said that a landowner may challenge a government’s decision to deny a land use permit or condition approval of a land use permit on the payment of fees using the standards set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 , 107 S. Ct. 3141 , 97 L.

2001The statute simply states that there is no immunity if the owner `charges a fee of any kind.'" Id. at 914 , 14 P.3d 871 .

2001The statute simply states that there is no immunity if the owner ‘charges a fee of any kind.’ ” Id. at 914 .

2025Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998); 2A ARTHUR LARSON, THE LAW OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION § 72.82 (1983).

2025Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658 , 958 P.2d 301 (1998); 2A ARTHUR LARSON, THE LAW OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION § 72.82 (1983).

1992The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the caterpillar presented a "latent" condition, as that term is used in the statutory exception to the landowner immunity provided for in RCW 4.24.210. 2 In arguing the condition here was latent, Mr. Van Dinter relies upon Preston v. Pierce Cy., 48 Wn.

1992App. 887, 888 , 741 P.2d 71 (1987).

1915In that case, after reviewing several authorities, we said: “It is manifest, from this long line of cases, that any form of procedure which taxes the costs of condemnation proceed ings in the superior courts to the landowner is in violation of the section of the constitution above quoted.” In Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. Lownsdale, 54 Wash. 83 , at page 93, 102 Pac. 1041 , 104 Pac. 267 , where the Grays Harbor Boom Company appealed from an award of damages in a condemnation proceeding, we reversed the judgment and awarded a new trial.

1915In that case, after reviewing several authorities, we said: “It is manifest, from this long line of cases, that any form of procedure which taxes the costs of condemnation proceed ings in the superior courts to the landowner is in violation of the section of the constitution above quoted.” In Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. Lownsdale, 54 Wash. 83 , at page 93, 102 Pac. 1041 , 104 Pac. 267 , where the Grays Harbor Boom Company appealed from an award of damages in a condemnation proceeding, we reversed the judgment and awarded a new trial.