Blue Sky Advocates v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.
Blue Sky Advocates (Blue Sky), a nonprofit corporation, characterizing this as an action against the Attorney General, claims that either a malpractice claim or the private attorney general doctrine entitles it to attorney fees and other expenses of its involvement in Energy Facility Site Evaluation Counsel (EFSEC) hearings. The trial court dismissed Blue Sky's action on summary judgment. We affirm the trial court and hold that RCW 80.50.080 does not contemplate malpractice suits against the Attorney General. We also reject the private attorney general doctrine.
Washington Water Power Company…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- Miotke v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- William v. CenarrusaIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Allingham v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Hillis v. Department of EcologyWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Hillis v. State, Dept. of EcologyWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
- Kreidler v. EikenberryWashington Supreme Court · 1989
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.