Legal Opinion
Stevens County v. Futurewise
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided June 26, 2008No. 26038-1-IIIPublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Kulik, A.C.J.
¶1 Stevens County Code (SCC) 13.10-.034(3)(C) establishes protections for “critical habitat,” defined as “only those areas designated by a state or federal agency through a formal statutory or rule-making process for endangered, threatened, or sensitive species.” Futurewise, a citizens’ group, filed a petition with the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) claiming that the above code section violates the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, because it fails to protect the habitats of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. Concluding that…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- A. v. Costantini v. Trans World Airlines and Does I Through XcCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- In Re the Detention of LaBelleWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- King County v. Central Puget SoundWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Rains v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1983
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Stephen Kerr Eugster v. Washington State Bar AssociationCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Stevens County v. FuturewiseCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Riverview Community Group v. Spencer & LivingstonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Beres v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.