Legal Opinion
Asche v. Bloomquist
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided March 14, 2006No. 32942-5-IIPublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBridgewater, J.
¶1 Richard and Helen Asche appeal the dismissal of their nuisance and mandamus actions for failure to state a claim. But at oral argument, the Asches confirmed they have abandoned their mandamus claim. We hold that their failure to file a land use petition within 21 days of the issuance of the building permit as required by RCW 36.70C.040 is determinative. Thus, their claims for nuisance, either public or private, fail, and their due process actions fail because they did not properly file under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW We affirm.
¶2 On February 3, 2005, Richard and…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Wedges/ledges of California, Inc. A California Corporation v. City of Phoenix, Arizona, a MunicipalityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Reid v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Reid v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Shanks v. DresselCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2013
- Durland v. San Juan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Asche v. BloomquistCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Woods View II, LLC v. Kitsap CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.