Legal Opinion
Diehl v. Mason County
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided March 5, 1999No. 22540-9-IIPublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBridgewater, C.J.
— Mason County adopted a comprehensive growth management plan as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the plan because it did not comply with several GMA requirements. Mason County appeals from the superior court’s order affirming the Board. We affirm.
The Legislature enacted the GMA, RCW 36.70A.010-.902, to minimize threats that unplanned growth poses to the environment, economic development, and public welfare. RCW 36.70A.010. Its goals include, among others, reducing sprawl, encouraging development in areas already…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Haley v. Medical Disciplinary BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGITWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Barry & Barry, Inc. v. Department of Motor VehiclesWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- Smith v. KingWashington Supreme Court · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- King County v. Central Puget SoundWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Thurston County v. W. WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENTWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2007
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.