Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.43

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.43.080

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every ordinance ordering a local improvement to be paid in whole or in part by assessments against the property specially benefited shall describe the improvement and establish a local improvement district to be known as "local improvement district No. . . . .," or a utility local improvement district to be known as "utility local improvement district No. . . . ." which shall embrace as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the improvement.
[ 1969 ex.s. c 258 s 3; 1967 c 52 s 5; 1965 c 7 s 35.43.080. Prior: 1957 c 144 s 15; prior: (i) 1947 c 155 s 1, part; 1941 c 90 s 1, part; 1915 c 168 s 2, part; 1911 c 98 s 13, part; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 9365, part. (ii) 1929 c 97 s 2; 1911 c 98 s 14; RRS s 9366.]

Notes:

Construction—Severability—1967 c 52: See notes following RCW 35.43.042.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1954–1985 · leading case: In Re Schmitz
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Schmitz (1954) wash “RCW 35.43.080]), the special benefits received by the properties must be spread by the zone and termini method as defined and set forth in the statute.”
Time Oil Co. v. City of Port Angeles (1985) washctapp “The 1947 statute contained the following language: Whenever the nature of the improvement is such that the special benefits conferred on the property are not fairly reflected by the use of the aforesaid termini and zone method, the ordinance ordering the improvement may provide…”
Sterling Realty Co. v. City of Bellevue (1966) wash · cites it 2× “The court correctly stated that RCW 35.43.080 requires the zone and termini method of assessment, unless the authorizing ordinance provides that assessments will be made on a different special benefits basis.”
Esping v. Pesicka (1978) washctapp “Smith's property will be "specially benefited" (RCW 35.43.080) since the proposed LID improvements are more extensive than those which Smith would be obligated to make; the improvements will be made now rather than "as buildings and improvements are made on the property"…”
Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle v. City of Seattle (1966) wash “6284 in accordance with RCW 35.43.080, and assessing the property of the district “in accordance with the special benefits to be derived from the improvement.”
Citizens for Underground Equality v. City of Seattle (1972) washctapp · cites it 2× “047 (which provides that cities may use any method or combinations of methods to finance special assessments which more fairly reflect the special benefits to the properties being assessed) is unconstitutional; and (4) that RCW 35.43.080 (which permits the city council to fix…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.