(The courts decision indicates that the initiative violated the one-subject requirement of RCW 35A.12.130, part of the Optional Municipal Code. Yims arguments do not fall into either per se category; Yim did not show that the FIT rule facially effects a regulatory taking (does not on its face require property owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of his property or a permanent physical invasion of the property). The elements for tortious interference are: (1) the existence of a [valid] business expectancy; (2) that [the defendant] had knowledge of that [expectancy]; (3) an intentional interference inducing or causing . The Spokane County Building and Planning Department found the sports complex was an allowed use, and that finding was affirmed on appeal by the Spokane County hearing examiner. The Court ruled that the Citys order was too broad. King County investigated the case and concluded that, since the woman contracted the virus on her own rural property, there was unlikely to be other exposures and a health advisory was not warranted. Mr. Long lived in the vehicle and it was inoperable. A representative filed a lawsuit on Beltran-Serranos behalf, alleging both the intentional act of assault and battery and negligence against the city. Any superior court in the state has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a LUPA petition. Also, the State alleged that the port had used public facilities to oppose the ballot issue, prohibited by RCW 42.17A.555. While Emerald applied to the county for a building permit to operate a general retail business (crafts, collectibles, novelty items, general merchandise), it nevertheless began to sell marijuana. <>
Zink v. City of Mesa (6/1/2021) A city resident sought to video record a city council meeting. Otherwise, the council has authority to make a reasonable contractual arrangement for legal services. Church wanted to introduce evidence that the city had sought a 30 foot right-of-way; the court ruled that collateral estoppel barred the issue from being re-litigated since Church had an opportunity to raise the issue during the LUPA appeal, but it did not do so. App. The flood control plan by reason of RCW 86.12.037, the county argued, shielded the county from any action associated with flood protection and river navigation purposes under the plan. Emps. The requestor appealed the applicability of the exemption and claimed the city performed an inadequate search. The 911 dispatcher stayed on the phone with Delaura the entire time. expectancy; (4) that [the defendant] interfered for an improper purpose or used improper means; and (5) resultant damage." The Norgs filed suit alleging the city was negligent in its response to the 911 call and the resulting delay aggravated the injuries. Barr sought a writ of mandamus from the court, asking that the sheriff be required to issue a CPL.
Therefore, rulemaking under the APA is exempt from the requirements of the OPMA.
Here, the reports meet the dual purpose analysis and are protected as work product. The public duty doctrine protected the county from liability for the death of an individual from hantavirus since, although the county has a duty to determine appropriate action when it receives a report of the hantavirus, this duty was not owed to the deceased as an individual. The union provided information that staffing had a direct relationship to firefighter workload and safety; the city did not challenge or rebut that evidence. Economic status is not protected under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
The Court interpreted this provision to mean that the legislature may classify counties by population for any purpose, and not just with respect to the election of certain officers in certain classes of counties. Accordingly, it upheld SHB 2887 and the requirement that noncharter counties with a population of 400,000 or more elect five commissioners with district voting. 2d 423 (9/18/2018) Pierce County developed regulations for the operation of erotic dancing businesses, requiring that, among other things, performers must perform on an elevated platform and be a stated number of feet away from the closest customer. The county provided notice that future violations could result in suspension or revocation of the businesss license. Although the court found the allegations to be troubling, they did not meet the standards for a recall petition because the mayors actions, and decisions not to act, were not manifestly unreasonable. A lawsuit was brought, and the trial court found in the countys favor. It noted that the Countys code required the final land use decision be in writing and that the written decision be transmitted to Yakama. Relying on City of Seattle v. Long, the court found that the fifth factor made forfeiture grossly disproportionate, even though all of the other factors support civil forfeiture. The court reversed the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the judgment and grant summary judgment in favor of the commissioners.
While the page did contain some city information, it was minimal and informational and its inclusion was not in the scope of Doors employment or official capacity. Therefore, the court held that the subcontractors retainage claim was untimely. Although the requests were exhibits, they each were labeled as a public records act request and addressed to the citys public records officer. The court said it was a close call, but it upheld a trial court finding that the reports constitute a trade secret. The records included emails relating to union organizing, as well as emails unrelated to university business. The appellate court then held that the operating agreement also did not give Seattle the right to require the railroad to move its tracks, stating that the plain language of the operating agreement does not require BTRC to relocate its tracks in the missing link portion., Finally, the court considered whether the railroad was entitled to attorney fees and damages under Washingtons anti-SLAPP statute. Department of Retirement Services was equitably estopped from denying former police chief his LEOFF 2 retirement benefits even though the chief took a new position with the city after retirement. The city did not know its actions would be found unlawful when it made the dedication requirement. The city argued, among other things, that the lawsuit was not brought on a timely basis under LUPA, which requires a petitioner to file a petition in superior court within 21 days of issuance of a land use decision. The ordinance also made it a civil infraction if a minor, at-risk person, or prohibited person gains access to the firearm. City of Seattle v. Long (8/12/2021) The city impounded a vehicle owned by Mr. Long for violation of parking duration restrictions. PRA statute of limitations did not restart upon production of later discovered records. Towns purchase of property for a municipal purpose at a price that exceeded the propertys appraised value did not constitute legal sufficiency to support recall of an official. The Board relied on a definition used by federal courts in connection with serving the federal government under the federal rules of civil procedure. The ability to set the budget and appropriate money to public health work is a specific delegation by the legislature to the county's legislative authority. The City appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which reversed the superior court and reinstated the Boards decision. By insisting that their procedure be used, both parties committed a ULP an impasse over a permissive subject of bargaining. There was no intent to make a gift. May v. Spokane County (2/23/2021) RCW 49.60.227(1) provides that a property owner may file a lawsuit seeking a court order striking from the public record covenants on the property to the extent they are discriminatory and void under RCW 49.60.224. Upon the sale, the county indicated it was removing the lands forestland designation which triggered imposition of compensating tax. The petitioners alleged that the mayor failed to establish policies and safety measures for police use of crowd control measures during the COVID-19 emergency, failed to enforce police compliance with City regulations and policies and use of appropriate de-escalation techniques, and wrongfully subjected peaceful protesters and bystanders to chemical agents. The County argued that only decisions based on the MDNS were void and that land use applications for the project should be returned to the status of pending applications. The one-year statute of limitations for claims under the PRA begins to run on the day after an agencys final action with respect to a public records request. Additionally, the court instructed that Barr entered an order indicating that Barr qualified for restoration of his firearm rights. Ultimately the county provided proposed redactions to the court, which the court approved, concluding they were narrowly tailored to avoid improper disclosure. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Glenrose Association v. Spokane County (6/7/2022) A youth association proposed a sports complex which was opposed by a local neighborhood association. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court with respect to the amount of the public records penalties. The purchase was a discretionary act and can be overturned only if the purchase was manifestly unreasonable. On direct review, the Supreme Court held that the partial reimbursement under the more specific ballot box statute controls over the general unfunded mandate statute, so county reimbursement is limited to the States proportionate share. KMS is headquartered in Seattle where it has approximately 50 employees. Johnson v. Washington State Conservation Commission (2/9/2021) In response to complaints, the WSCC investigated two conservation district supervisors and determined that they had committed malfeasance and neglect of duty. Allphin argued that the county waived the work product privilege by communicating with DOE. Yim, along with other landlords, challenged the ordinance, arguing that it facially violated their state constitutional rights. To prevail on failure to accommodate, a person must notify the employer of the need to accommodate and the employer then fail to provide reasonable accommodations. This allegation also failed because the proclamations are content-neutral, tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of expression. Polygraph results for a police officer indicating past instances of dishonesty are not exempt from disclosure. The Washington Court of Appeals agreed, but upheld the WSCC order removing the supervisors, ruling that the error was harmless because the supervisors received sufficient process.
Asotin County v. Eggleston, 7 Wn. City of Puyallup v. Pierce County (12/14/2021) Pierce County issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for a warehouse distribution project bordering the City of Puyallup. Jurors serve as part of a civic duty and are only entitled to payment for services as provided by statute. Disparate impact claims may be brought under the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution. The Washington Supreme Court agreed with Yakama. American Hotel & Lodging Association v. City of Seattle, 6 Wn. %
Further, after Ogiers complaint, the city discovered that the manholes on the street should have been bolted down but were not, and the city knew it was not uncommon for covers to become loose. The initiative contained seven parts, with sections guarding against sexual assault, providing for a register of hotel guests who have engaged in improper sexual behavior with hotel workers, providing for exclusion of guests who violate the ordinance, and offering job protection of workers, if there is a change in hotel ownership. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that three of the charges were factually and legally sufficient and that one was not legally sufficient. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. WR-SRI 120N, 191 Wn.2d 223 (8/2/2018) Sound Transit (Sound) seeks to construct a light rail extension in Bellevue. Unfortunately, the Board had issued its licenses in batches, and it had no way to determine which license was issued to which business first.