Miller v. Pacific County
Washington Supreme Court
1Dissent
*753Utter, C.J.
(dissenting) — The majority does not allow recovery for injuries which are otherwise tortious. I cannot agree.
There are two clearly established foundations in this case. First, the defendants exceeded the scope of their authority in denying payment of appellant's vouchers without a formal revision of the county budget. This action was wrongful toward the appellant and was unlawful; if the action had been in accordance with law there would have been no legal or factual predicate for issuance of the writ of mandamus. See Miller v. Pacific County, 9 Wn. App. 177, 509 P.2d 377 (1973).…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Halvorson v. DahlWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Lillions v. GibbsWashington Supreme Court · 1955
- Benedict v. Board of Police Pension Fund CommissionersWashington Supreme Court · 1950
- State Ex Rel. Craven v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1963
- Stoor v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.