Legal Opinion

Cummins v. King County

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1967No. 39032PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lawless, J. †

is a claim by the respondents, John R. Cummins and Florence A. Cummins (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs), of inverse condemnation asserting violation of Const, art. 1, § 16 (amendment 9). The appellant, King County (hereinafter referred to as defendant), first contends that the dedicatory language and drawing contained in Pelican Park division 4 plat gives the county an easement right upon the plaintiffs’ lot for a supporting slope extending 26 feet beyond the highway right of way.

The pertinent language of dedication contained on the plat is as follows:

Description—This plat…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Ackerman v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Martin v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Kincaid v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Boitano v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Frye v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1929

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Hagenkord v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State Ex Rel. Haman v. FoxIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Roeder Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Kiely v. GravesWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Rainier Avenue Corp. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1972

12 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