Legal Opinion

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 13, 2003No. 20916-4-IIIPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sweeney, J. —

This land use case presents two issues, one procedural and one substantive. The procedural question is whether the case has been rendered moot because a building permit has been issued for a challenged project, construction is proceeding, and the homeowners have not superseded or tried to enjoin development. We conclude that the homeowners are not required to either enjoin or supersede an adverse zoning decision to proceed with this appeal. The substantive question is whether the city of Spokane, acting through its city council, can authorize a zone change based on the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. State v. Reader's Digest Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount VernonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount VernonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Raynes v. City of LeavenworthWashington Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  2. Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & AssociatesWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'NWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  4. WCHS, Inc. v. City of LynnwoodCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  5. WCHS, INC. v. City of LynnwoodCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004

2 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