Legal Opinion

Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Management Hearings Board

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 18, 2015No. 45459-9-IIPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 — Protect the Peninsula’s Future (PPF) appeals the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board’s (Board) dismissal of its compliance action seeking to require Clallam County to adopt new critical areas regulations that comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA).1 PPF argues that new regulations are required because the Board invalidated portions of Cla-llam’s existing critical areas regulations in 2001 (a decision that we affirmed in part on appeal) and because the legislature-imposed moratorium on changes to critical areas regulations that took effect shortly after that…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State v. JacobsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. King County v. Central Puget SoundWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  3. King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Jametsky v. OlsenWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Kilian v. AtkinsonWashington Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. R.B. v. C.W.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  2. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port Of VancouverCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  3. Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  4. Carrera Ex Rel. Department of Labor & Industries v. OlmsteadCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  5. James And Laura Walsh, V Ronald HalmeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016

7 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