Henne v. City of Yakima
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- State v. J.M.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
- Diamond v. CrossWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- SPOKANE RESEARCH FUND v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2005
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.