Legal Opinion

Hoover v. Pierce County

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided October 3, 1995No. 16954-1-IIPublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFleisher, J.

The Hoovers instituted an inverse condemnation action against Pierce County, claiming that a county roadway diverted surface waters onto the Hoovers’ property. The trial court ordered a directed verdict against the County, and the jury determined damages. The County appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for the Hoovers, and in denying its motion for a directed verdict. We hold that the Hoovers may not recover damages based on inverse condemnation by the County because any taking by the County occurred before they purchased the property. Accordingly, we…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Highline School District No. 401 v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Miotke v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Martin v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Petersen v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Wilber Development Corp. v. Les Rowland Constr., Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Phillips v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Sintra, Inc. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Phillips v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Phillips v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  5. DiBlasi v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998

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

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

Powered by the Exa API