Legal Opinion
Hatley v. City of Union Gap
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided May 22, 2001No. 19481-7-IIIPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
Luke Hatley connected his Union Gap property to the city water system and paid a connection charge in 1995. The property was unoccupied, so Mr. Hatley kept the water turned off. In 1998, the City of Union Gap added an “infrastructure” charge to its water services connection charge. In 1999, Mr. Hatley was ready to turn on his water. The City demanded that he pay the new “infrastructure” charge. The question presented is whether Mr. Hatley was already “connected” to city water and was, therefore, not subject to the 1998 infrastructure charge. We conclude that he was not subject to the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Caritas Services, Inc. v. Department of Social & Health ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- World Wide Video, Inc. v. City of TukwilaWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- Ski Acres, Inc. v. Kittitas CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Hiatt v. Walker Chevrolet Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Eugster v. City of SpokaneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- Eugster v. City of SpokaneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- Magula v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- Mann v. Household Finance Corp. IIICourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Hatley v. City of Union GapCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.