Legal Opinion
Sleasman v. City of Lacey
Washington Supreme Court
Decided February 8, 2007No. 77590-7PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 — We are asked to determine the meaning of “undeveloped” and “partially developed” lot as these terms were used in a Lacey ordinance. In May 2002 Stephen and Barbara Sleasman cut down trees in their backyard. City of Lacey (Lacey or city) regulates tree *641removal on “undeveloped” or “partially developed” property, former Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 14.32.030(C), and fined the Sleasmans $16,861 for allegedly violating chapter 14.32 LMC. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 42-43. A reduced fine was upheld by the Court of Appeals. We reverse.
Sanders, J.
*641¶2 We hold the Lacey ordinance does not apply to the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Cockle v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Whatcom County v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Pasco v. Public Employment Relations CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1992
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- ABBEY ROAD GROUP v. City of Bonney LakeWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Griffin v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Griffin v. Thurston County Board of HealthWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- ABC Holdings, Inc. v. Kittitas CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.