Legal Opinion · Dissent

Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communications Center

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 2012No. 85984-1Published

1DissentJ.M. Johnson, J.

¶47 (dissenting) — The requirement of a false, inaccurate, or unfulfilled assurance has always been part of the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine. This is because falsity is inherent in the prerequisite that an individual detrimentally rely on the government’s assurance before a duty toward that individual is recognized. It is impossible to detrimentally rely on a true and accurate statement of fact: central to detrimental reliance is the notion that a false or misleading representation causes the individual to act differently than he or she would act with accurate…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Stevens CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Beal v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Beal for Martinez v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Meaney v. DoddWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Babcock v. Mason County Fire District No. 6Washington Supreme Court · 2001

5 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