Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Henne v. City of Yakima

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 7, 2013No. 30902-9-IIIPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFearing, J.

¶18 (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority’s second ruling that a city is a “person” for purposes of Washington’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute, RCW 4.24.525.1 write separately, in part, because I believe the issue merits additional analysis. I also write separately because the majority fails to provide directions to the trial court as to what steps to take as a result of this ruling. Presumably, the majority wishes no steps to be taken, to which I respectfully disagree.

¶19 I dissent from the majority’s first ruling…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. State v. J.M.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Diamond v. CrossWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. SPOKANE RESEARCH FUND v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2005

23 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