Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hillis v. Department of Ecology

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1997No. 63399-1Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSanders, J.

(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — ROW 90.03.290 creates a duty on the part of the state and a corresponding legal right on the part of the applicant. It provides in part:

When an application complying with the provisions of this chapter and with the rules and regulations of the department has been filed, the same shall be placed on record with the department, and it shall be its duty to investigate the application .... [I]f it shall find that there is water available for appropriation for a beneficial use, and the appropriation thereof as proposed in the application will not impair…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Robinson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Sintra, Inc. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Erwin & Erwin v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Guimont v. ClarkeWashington Supreme Court · 1993

15 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