Legal Opinion
Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 4, 2011No. 38017-0-IIPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 In the initial consideration of this appeal, this court concluded that it was required to follow the result of an inconclusive opinion of the Washington Supreme Court and directed that Kitsap County plan for critical areas1 under the Shorelines Management Act of 1971 (SMA)2 rather than the Growth Management Act (GMA).3 The Washington Legislature promptly enacted amendments *256clarifying that the GMA was to regulate critical areas until such time as SMA plans were updated and also directed that the amendments be applied retroactively.
Korsmo, J.
*256¶2 The Washington Supreme Court granted Kitsap…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- King County v. Central Puget SoundWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Lauer v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- B&R Sales, Inc. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Yakima County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.