Legal Opinion
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle
Washington Supreme Court
Decided April 17, 1997No. 62304-0PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
For a second time, we are asked to review a dispute between Sintra, Inc., and the City of Seattle involving the enforcement of Seattle’s former Housing Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance). In Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1, 829 P.2d 765 (1992) (Sintra I), we held enforcement of the Ordinance violated substantive *645due process as unduly oppressive and remanded to the trial court to resolve questions of fact, including whether a regulatory taking had occurred, and, if so, the proper amount of compensation. We also remanded for the trial court to determine whether Sintra was entitled…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Yousoufian v. Office of Ron SimsWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Sintra, Inc. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Cox v. SpanglerWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Cox v. SpanglerWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1998
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.