Legal Opinion
Ferry County v. Concerned Friends
Washington Supreme Court
Decided November 17, 2005No. 75493-4PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 Fairhurst, J.
The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) found Ferry County noncompliant with the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically, the Board found that Ferry County failed to demonstrate inclusion of best available science (BAS) in listing only two species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive (ETS) in its critical areas ordinance. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding and affirm the Court of Appeals.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
f 2 In an order dated July 31,1998, the Board found that Ferry County failed to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Callecod v. Washington State PatrolCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
- Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Swinomish Indian v. Western WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Ferry County v. Concerned FriendsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Stevens County v. FuturewiseCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.