Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70C

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.140

Decision of the court

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court may affirm or reverse the land use decision under review or remand it for modification or further proceedings. If the decision is remanded for modification or further proceedings, the court may make such an order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of the parties and the public, pending further proceedings or action by the local jurisdiction.
[ 1995 c 347 s 715.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Knight v. City of Yelm
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011) wash · cites it 2× “The superior court's order granting Knight notice of future final plat applications was authorized by RCW 36.70C.140, which provides, "If the decision is remanded for modification .”
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (2013) wash “11 See RCW 36.70C.140 *927 (listing remedies available through LUPA, including reversal or modification of a land use decision).”
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. City of Woodinville (2011) wash “RCW 36.70C.140. If the decision is remanded for modification or further proceedings, the court may make such an order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of the parties and the public, pending further proceedings or action by the local jurisdiction.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006) washctapp “” RCW 36.70C.140. With this authority, the trial court could have redressed the Asches’ injury.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006) washctapp “" RCW 36.70C.140. With this authority, the trial court could have redressed the Asches' injury.”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates (2004) wash “Consequently, pursuant to RCW 36.70C.140, we affirm the land use decision of the City Council, thereby reversing the *294 Court of Appeals and upholding the decision of the superior court.”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N (2004) wash “Consequently, pursuant to RCW 36.70C.140, we affirm the land use decision of the City Council, thereby reversing the Court of Appeals and upholding the decision of the superior court.”
Tugwell v. Kittitas County (1997) washctapp “8 The City urges us to reverse the Board’s decision, which is one of the remedies authorized by RCW 36.70C.140. However, in light of our conclusion that the rezoning was supported by substantial evidence, there is no ground for reversal.”
Prosser Hill Coalition v. Spokane County (2013) washctapp “¶21 RCW 36.70C.140 outlines three possible responses for a reviewing court when considering a hearing examiner’s decision: “The court may affirm or reverse the land use decision under review or remand it for modification or further proceedings.”
SUNDERLAND FAMILY TREATMENT v. City of Pasco (2001) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.140. This court stands in the same position as the superior court when reviewing the underlying administrative decision.”
Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco (2001) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.140. This court stands in the same position as the superior court when reviewing the underlying administrative decision.”
Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas (1999) washctapp “V Findings of Fact The City complains that the trial court failed to issue findings of fact but RCW 36.70C.140 does not require written findings.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.