Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.180
Review of decision
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any decision approving or disapproving any plat shall be reviewable under chapter 36.70C RCW.
Notes:
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: North Street Ass'n v. City of Olympia
North Street Ass'n v. City of Olympia (2006)
“The respondents again moved to dismiss the application, this time maintaining that the necessary parties had not been served within the 30-day filing period provided by RCW 58.17.180. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action.”
South Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n v. King County (1984)
“RCW 58.17.180 contains the applicable time limitation, therefore respondent's argument that these other provisions apply is without merit.”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell (1992)
“Bothell contended below, inter alia, that the action was barred by the 30-day statute of limitations period established by RCW 58.17.180 for review of a municipal action approving or disapproving plats.”
East Gig Harbor Improvement Association v. Pierce County (1986)
“First, the^ court held that under RCW 58.17.180 the Association lacked standing to apply for the writ.”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell (1994)
“Bothell argued that the suit was time barred by a 30-day limitation in the platting statute, RCW 58.17.180, and that the developers should be estopped from their refund claims.”
Phillips v. King County (1997)
“Both respondents miss the point of former RCW 58.17.180 and the current RCW 36.”
Concerned Organized Women & People Opposed to Offensive Proposals, Inc. v. City of Arlington (1993)
“Specifically, the notice read in part as follows: Time limits established by statute or ordinance relating to the underlying action: RCW 58.17.180 — 30 days from decision for review of approval of preliminary plat RCW 90.”
Veradale Valley Citizens' Planning Committee v. Board of County Commissioners (1978)
“Bates and McKinley following the lapse of the statutory 30-day period for review (RCW 58.17.180). Cherry Blossom Addition J.”
Lejeune v. Clallam County (1992)
“See RCW 58.17.180. He joined the County as a party, but not the neighbors.”
Trimen Development Co. v. King County (1992)
“RCW 58.17.180 provides that any decision approving or disapproving a plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action by application for a writ of review to the superior court.”
Miller v. Issaquah Corporation (1983)
“At the hearing on December 23, the City of Issaquah made a motion to dismiss, contending that RCW 58.17.180 required service and filing of the petition within 30 days of the action to be reviewed.”
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011)
“¶ 14 This case involves a local legislative body's approval of a preliminary plat.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.180(2) — 3 cases
Crosby v. Spokane County (1999)
Crosby v. County of Spokane (1999)
East Gig Harbor Improvement Association v. Pierce County (1986)
“First, the^ court held that under RCW 58.17.180 the Association lacked standing to apply for the writ.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.180(3) — 1 case
East Gig Harbor Improvement Association v. Pierce County (1986)
“First, the^ court held that under RCW 58.17.180 the Association lacked standing to apply for the writ.”
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.