City of Tacoma v. City of Bonney Lake
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.
¶1 The city of Tacoma has franchise agreements with Pierce County and the cities of Fircrest, University Place, and Federal Way (collectively Municipalities) to provide them with water services.1 The central issue before us is whether the franchise agreements require Tacoma to not only provide and maintain fire hydrants, but to bear the costs as well. As part of that issue, Tacoma also raises questions about the impact of the agreements’ indemnification clauses on this case, as well as whether Tacoma must defend Federal Way in this action. We hold that the franchise agreements contractually…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- Covell v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- Eurick v. Pemco Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
- Burns v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Burns v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2007
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Jesus Pimentel v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- Grant County Port District No. 9 v. Washington Tire Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Christopher And Suzanne Guest, V David And Karen LangeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- City of Wenatchee v. Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.