Legal Opinion

Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan County

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 22, 2008No. 25161-6-IIIPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*292¶1 The common enemy rule, which allows landowners to repel surface waters to the detriment of their neighbors, does not apply when the landowner obstructs a watercourse or natural drainway or when the landowner obstructs riparian water from entering a flood channel. Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wn.2d 858, 862-63, 983 P.2d 626, 993 P.2d 900 (1999); Sund v. Keating, 43 Wn.2d 36, 42-43, 259 P.2d 1113 (1953). Landowners appeal summary dismissal of their inverse condemnation claim. They claim that a dike owned, constructed, maintained, and modified by government entities blocked side channels through…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Phillips v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Martin v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API