Legal Opinion

Kilpatrick v. City of Anacortes

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 19, 1996No. 37704-3-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.

The Anacortes Board of Adjustment voted at a public meeting to deny the Kilpatricks’ application for a variance. Twenty-seven days later, the Kilpatricks sought review in superior court. The statutory time limit for seeking a writ is 10 days from the Board’s "action.” The court dismissed their complaint as untimely. We affirm, rejecting the argument that "action” requires entry of a written document. The "action” that triggered the appeal period was the Board’s vote.

MOOTNESS

F. Michael and Sally Kilpatrick sought a variance to build two houses on a 10,500-square-foot parcel where the minimum…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sorenson v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State v. RundquistCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
  3. State v. DaileyWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  4. North Street Ass'n v. City of OlympiaWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Concerned Organized Women & People Opposed to Offensive Proposals, Inc. v. City of ArlingtonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Northshore Investors, LLC v. City of TacomaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. King's Way Foursquare Church v. Clallam CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  3. Northshore Investors, Llc, Apps./cross-res. v. City Of Tacoma, Res./cross-apps.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API