Public Utility District No. 2 v. North American Foreign Trade Zone Industries, LLC
Washington Supreme Court
1Dissent
¶61 (dissenting) — Once again we are called upon to decide whether a public agency provided adequate notice before making a decision to condemn private property. As I did in the fairly recent case of Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. Miller, 156 Wn.2d 403, 128 P.3d 588 (2006), I write separately to emphasize that agencies subject to a notice statute must carry out not only the letter but the intent of the statute’s notification requirements. We have said that the purpose of notice statutes is to fairly and sufficiently inform those who may be affected by government action of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Schroeder v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.