Legal Opinion

Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided June 1, 2010No. 63504-2-IPublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Robinson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Watch v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Asche v. BloomquistCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  5. 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

  1. Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of MarysvilleDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2015
  3. Jeanne Congdon v. Island CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  4. Lakey v. Puget Sound EnergyWashington Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Scott Blomenkamp v. City Of EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API