Division I of the Court of Appeals held on Tuesday that a proposed Bellingham initiative, which would prohibit the City from installing or using an automated traffic camera system unless approved by a majority of the city council and a majority of the voters, exceeded the lawful scope of the local initiative power. An initiative [...]
Archive for the ‘Washington Court of Appeals’ category
American Traffic Solutions v. City of Bellingham – Automated Traffic Safety Cameras
September 9, 2011Puget Sound Energy v. City of Bellingham – Utility Taxes
September 7, 2011Read a summary of the Court of Appeals’ recent decision upholding the City of Bellingham’s utility tax assessment for unpaid utility taxes and penalties.
West v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources
September 2, 2011Please follow the link to read about the Court of Appeals’ recent Public Records Act decision, which discusses the obligation to respond to a public records request within five business days.
Andrews v. Harrison Medical Center: Anti-Nepotism Policies
January 24, 2011New case discusses anti-nepotism policies and discrimination based upon marital status under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination.
Gendler v. Batiste – Public Records Act and Traffic Accident Reports
November 30, 2010In Gendler v. Batiste, the Court of Appeals held that the Washington State Patrol (WSP) was required to disclose historical bicycle accident records of accidents occurring on Seattle’s Montlake Bridge. The requestor had suffered serious injuries when his bike tire became wedged in the bridge’s grating. The requestor suspected that the bridge had been unsafe [...]
Court of Appeals issues decision in Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorneys Guild v. Kitsap County
May 17, 2010On May 11, 2010, the Division II Court of Appeals issued a decision in Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorneys Guild v. Kitsap County, No. 39196-1-II, confirming that an award of attorneys fees, costs, and penalties under the Public Records Act (“Act”) is mandatory if a court determines that the government agency wrongfully withholds or fails to disclose public records.
LUPA – Failure to Timely Appeal Permits Not Subject to Public Notice
December 21, 2009Courts cannot entertain appeals of land use decisions unless the appellant has exhausted all administrative appeals first. Exhaustion includes the timely filing of administrative appeals, even if the appellant is not required to receive notice of the land use decision. Nickum v. Bainbridge Island, ___ Wn. App. _____, Slip Op. 38217-2.
Reconsideration Does Toll LUPA’s 21 Day Appeal Period
December 16, 2009LAND USE PETITION ACT (LUPA)—“FINAL DETERMINATION”—MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. A motion for reconsideration of a land use decision made by a jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority does not toll LUPA’s strict 21-day superior court appeal filing deadline. RCW 36.70C.040(2), (3). Mellish v Frog Mountain Pet Care, et al, Slip Op. No. 37583-4-II (December 15, 2009).
