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.
6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerrangreen2 sentences2014Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 867-68, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). 2014Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 867-68, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). | 1 | 4 |
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Countygreen2 sentences2021“At common law, this state’s doctrine of vested rights entitled developers to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit application was filed.” Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 275 . 2014Fourth, Potala Village cites Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County to assert that the "vested rights doctrine was originally established through common law, but now is based on both common law and statutory authority, depending on the type of permit application involved."82 There, the supreme court was concerned with the filing of a short plat application.83 It explained the development of vested rights: At common law, this state's doctrine of vested rights entitled developers to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit 79 Res | 1 | 2 |
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Countygreen1 sentence2014Fourth, Potala Village cites Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County to assert that the "vested rights doctrine was originally established through common law, but now is based on both common law and statutory authority, depending on the type of permit application involved."82 There, the supreme court was concerned with the filing of a short plat application.83 It explained the development of vested rights: At common law, this state's doctrine of vested rights entitled developers to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit 79 Res | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Friends of the Law v. King Cy.
green
2 sentences2021“In 1987, the Legislature (1) codified the traditional common law vested rights doctrine regarding vesting upon application of building permits [in RCW 19.27.095], and (2) enlarged the vesting doctrine to also apply to subdivision and short subdivision applications [in RCW 58.17.033].” Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 275 (citing LAWS OF 1987, ch. 104; Friends of the Law v. King County, 123 Wn.2d 518, 522 , 869 P.2d 1056 (1994)). 2021“In 1987, the Legislature (1) codified the traditional common law vested rights doctrine regarding vesting upon application of building permits [in RCW 19.27.095], and (2) enlarged the vesting doctrine to also apply to subdivision and short subdivision applications [in RCW 58.17.033].” Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 275 (citing LAWS OF 1987, ch. 104; Friends of the Law v. King County, 123 Wn.2d 518, 522 , 869 P.2d 1056 (1994)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake
green
1 sentence2014Fourth, Potala Village cites Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County to assert that the "vested rights doctrine was originally established through common law, but now is based on both common law and statutory authority, depending on the type of permit application involved."82 There, the supreme court was concerned with the filing of a short plat application.83 It explained the development of vested rights: At common law, this state's doctrine of vested rights entitled developers to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit 79 Res | 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.