Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.58

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.900

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter is exempted from the rule of strict construction, and it shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 37.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1973–2019 · leading case: Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board (1975) wash · cites it 3× “) RCW 90.58.900. The overriding purpose for which the SMA was enacted was to preserve the natural resources of the state and to regulate construction *447 upon the shorelines in accordance with the public interest.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “” RCW 90.58.900. In this case, the SMA provision with which Ecology has sought to ensure compliance is the requirement that a developer apply for a “substantial development permit” for “any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds two thousand five…”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County (1979) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.900. Road construction is the major cause of soil erosion from forest practices.”
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.900. The objectives and purposes of the SMA are set forth in RCW 90.”
Buechel v. Department of Ecology (1994) wash “2d at 20 ; see RCW 90.58.900. 17 RCW 90.58.020. 18 RCW 90.”
Hayes v. Yount (1976) wash “In addition, the legislative mandate that the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 be “liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted”, RCW 90.58.900, supports the more expansive construction of the regulation adopted by the board.”
English Bay Enterprises, Ltd. v. Island County (1977) wash “See RCW 90.58.900. A liberal construction of the act is also mandated by the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971.”
Harrington v. Spokane County (2005) washctapp “The applicant for a permit has the burden of proving that a proposed development is consistent with the Act. RCW 90.58.140(7). ¶ 33 A person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit may seek review by the shorelines hearings board.”
Harrington v. Spokane County (2005) washctapp “RCW 90.58.900. One purpose is to protect statewide interests over local interests.”
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Board (2009) washctapp “2d 783 (1977); see RCW 90.58.900. “A liberal construction of the act is also mandated by the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971.”
Hunt v. Anderson (1981) washctapp “The parties devoted much of their briefs to the question whether placement of the mobile home on the defendant's lot constitutes a substantial development. If a substantial development permit were required, any such development without a permit or variance would be in violation…”
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Fitzsimmons (1999) washctapp “Furthermore, RCW 90.58.900 provides that chapter 90.58 is to be “liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted.”
Show all 23 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.