Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentHorowitz, J.
(dissenting) — By reversing the judgment below, the court in effect and in the name of legislative intent, has read out of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA), the unambiguous appeal provisions of RCW 90.58.140(2) (a). In doing so, I believe the court has not adhered to its own admonitions that the court is not a super-legislature; that it is not at liberty to substitute its own wisdom for that of the legislature when acting in its legislative capacity; that it must reconcile, if it reasonably can, seemingly inconsistent provisions of a statute. Reconciliation is possible. The…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited18 opinions
- New York Trust Co. v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. International Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. PfitschSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- State Ex Rel. Evans v. Brotherhood of FriendsWashington Supreme Court · 1952
- State Ex Rel. Hagan v. Chinook Hotel, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.