Legal Opinion
Gold Star Resorts, Inc. v. Futurewise
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 17, 2009No. 80810-4PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, J.
¶1 This case involves challenges to What-com County’s (the County) comprehensive plan on the ground that it does not comply with the Growth Management Act’s (GMA), chapter 36.70ARCW, provisions regarding limited areas of more intensive rural development and rural densities. We agree with the Court of Appeals that, as the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) concluded, the County must revise its comprehensive plan to conform to 1997 amendments to the GMA that set out criteria for establishing limited areas of more intensive rural development and rural densities. We…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Shoemaker v. City of BremertonWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- Loveridge v. Fred Meyer, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995
- Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD.Washington Supreme Court · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- Suquamish Tribe v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUNDCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- Suquamish Tribe v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- Clallam County v. Dry Creek CoalitionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.