Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
¶1 The failure to timely challenge a land use decision by means of a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA)1 petition bars any further claims challenging that decision, including challenges to the process for approving that decision. Here, the city’s approval of a temporary use agreement that permitted a church to use its property to host a homeless encampment was a land use decision within the meaning of LUPA because it was a decision on the church’s application for government approval required by law of a property use. Thus, the plaintiff’s failure to *396challenge that decision in a timely LUPA petition…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Robinson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Watch v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Asche v. BloomquistCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of ChristWashington Supreme Court · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2013
- Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of MarysvilleDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2015
- Jeanne Congdon v. Island CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- Lakey v. Puget Sound EnergyWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- Scott Blomenkamp v. City Of EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019