Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtAppelwick, J.
By statute, entities with franchises to use county rights-of-way must pay the cost of relocating their facilities when the county roads where those facilities are located are improved. Thus, between the county and a franchisee, the statute assigns liability for those costs to the franchisee. But the statute does not prohibit franchisees like Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) from charging those relocation costs to developers, like Sundquist Homes, who request moving the facilities in order to proceed with development. The PUD’s authority to charge for those costs can be…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mt. Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. TydingsWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 1986
- Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Public Utility District No. 1Court of Appeals of Washington · 1977
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Damé Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- Home Builders Ass'n of Greater St. Louis v. St. Louis County Water Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Whisenhunt v. Southwestern Bell TelephoneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Joe Whisenhunt v. Southwestern Bell TelephoneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. PUDWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.