Legal Opinion
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 13, 2011No. 28350-0-IIIPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*278¶1 Subject matter jurisdiction over petitions to amend a comprehensive plan is vested exclusively in growth management hearings boards. The decision is legislative in nature and therefore not subject to judicial review. Changes to zoning regulations, on the other hand, are not exclusively legislative and are therefore subject to judicial review. The landowner here petitioned for judicial review of a decision by a growth management hearings board. The hearings board concluded that a county’s change in its comprehensive plan was inconsistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGITWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Woods v. Kittitas CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation CoalitionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation And FuturewiseCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation and FuturewiseCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.