Legal Opinion
Lane v. City of Seattle
Washington Supreme Court
Decided October 16, 2008No. 80204-1PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJ.M. Johnson, J.
¶1 In this case we must decide who will pay for fire hydrants in the city of Seattle and its suburbs. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) used to pay for them, *880passing the cost along to its ratepayers. The ratepayers object and want Seattle to foot the bill. If Seattle has to pay for its hydrants, it wants Lake Forest Park to pay for the hydrants in Lake Forest Park. Lake Forest Park, in turn, wants fire districts in Lake Forest Park to pay. The fire districts want someone, anyone, else to pay. On top of all that, the ratepayers want interest on improper past hydrant payments they recover and want…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Prier v. Refrigeration Engineering Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
- Covell v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Franklin CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Landmark Development, Inc. v. City of RoyWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Okeson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Tacoma v. City of Bonney LakeWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive Dow ConstantineWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- City of Wenatchee v. Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- City of Snoqualmie v. King County Exec. ConstantineWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- Elliott Bay Marina v. City Of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.