Armstrong v. State
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtHoughton, C.J.
— Ronald and Melvin Armstrong (the Armstrongs) filed a class action lawsuit against the Depart ment of Fish and Wildlife (Department) 1 seeking to enjoin enforcement of a regulation requiring modern gun hunters to wear fluorescent orange clothing while hunting. The Armstrongs argued that the Department did not have statutory authority to adopt and enforce the regulation. The trial court denied class certification and preliminary injunctive relief. The Armstrongs appeal from the superior court’s ruling that the regulation was valid. We hold that the Department acted within its delegated…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1985
- Bennett v. HardyWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. AlvarezWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1975
- Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1966
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. VillarrealCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Wells v. Whatcom County Water Dist. No. 10Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Wells v. Whatcom County Water District No. 10Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Fed. of Employees v. Dept. of Gen. Admin.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Washington Federation of State Employees v. Department of General AdministrationCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.