Legal Opinion
City of Puyallup v. Hogan
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided May 16, 2012No. 41017-6-IIPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Worswick, A.C.J.
¶1 — The city of Puyallup condemned a small portion of Carl Hogan’s shopping center (Center) for a road construction project that will significantly reduce access to the Center. After a jury awarded Hogan over $5,150,000 in just compensation for the taking, the Center’s anchor tenant, Borders, petitioned the trial court for apportionment of that award. The trial court awarded $918,129.18 to Borders in a bench apportionment trial. Hogan appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) denying summary judgment because Borders waived its right to apportionment, (2) calculating…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Berg v. HudesmanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District v. DickieWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin CorporationWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
- Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Public Utility District No. 2 v. Comcast of Washington IV, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Pac. Cnty., Mun. Corp. v. Comcast of Wash. Iv, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- APPLE KING, LLC v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANYDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2026
- Pud No. 2 Of Pacific County v. Comcast And CenturytelCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- Pud Utility Dist. No. 2 Of Pacific Cty v. Comcast Of Wa, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.