Cummins v. King County
Washington Supreme Court
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
- Ackerman v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Martin v. Port of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
- Kincaid v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Boitano v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- Frye v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1929
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hagenkord v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
- State Ex Rel. Haman v. FoxIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Roeder Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
- Kiely v. GravesWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- Rainier Avenue Corp. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1972
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.