Legal Opinion
City of Sequim v. Malkasian
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided November 12, 2003No. 22922-6-IIPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
After an election in which a city’s voters approve an initiative, thus converting the initiative into an ordinance, does the city have standing to seek a judgment declaring that the ordinance violates state law? Assuming that the city has standing to sue, may it name the initiative’s sponsor, in his or her individual capacity, as the sole defendant? We answer yes to the first question but no to the second. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that this action is not justiciable and should be dismissed.
In October 1996, Paul Malkasian proposed and filed an initiative which, if adopted,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Lord v. VeazieSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Bowles v. Department of Retirement SystemsWashington Supreme Court · 1993
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Sequim v. MalkasianWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- City of Sequim v. MalkasianWashington Supreme Court · 2006
- Berent v. City of Iowa CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 2007
- City of Sequim v. MalkasianCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- City of Sequim v. MalkasianWashington Supreme Court · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.