Legal Opinion

Peacock v. Public Disclosure Commission

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 6, 1996No. 20027-9-IIPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBridgewater, J.

Richard Peacock appeals from a superior court decision affirming the Public Disclosure Commission’s (PDC) declaratory order that his Cedar County Committee is a "grass roots lobbying campaign” that must comply with the PDC’s registration and reporting requirements. We hold that the Committee’s effort to distribute informational brochures and to gather signatures to create a new county from a part of King County is intended primarily to influence legislation and, as such, is a "grass roots lobbying campaign” subject to the PDC’s disclosure requirements. We affirm.

Richard Peacock is…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Tapper v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. SellersWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  3. American Legion Post No. 32 v. City of Walla WallaWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Garrison v. Washington State Nursing BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Overton v. Economic Assistance AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 1981

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. Department of HealthCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
  2. Washington Independent Telephone Ass'n v. Washington Utilities & Transportation CommissionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. Cedar County Committee v. MunroWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Cedar County Committee v. MunroWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Many Cultures, One Message v. ClementsDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2011

1 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