Edelman v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n

11 Citing cases

  1. Edelman v. State ex Rel. P.D.C

    152 Wn. 2d 584 (Wash. 2004)   Cited 25 times

    The superior court dismissed Edelman's petition and Edelman appealed. In a published opinion, Edelman v. State ex rel. Public Disclosure Commission, 116 Wn. App. 876, 68 P.3d 296 (2003), the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that RCW 42.17.660 is unambiguous and that Rule 311 improperly modifies the statute. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals invalidated Rule 311.

  2. Edelman v. State ex Rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n

    150 Wash. 2d 1025 (Wash. 2004)

    January 7, 2004. Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 28563-1-II, May 13, 2003, 116 Wn. App. 876. Granted.

  3. Re Sources for Sustainable Cmty. v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Wash. (In re Wash. Builders Benefit Trust)

    293 P.3d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 45 times
    Referencing the Restatement (Third) of Trusts to define a trustee's duties

    This court has similarly rejected the assertion that a party does not violate the law where it mistakenly believes its conduct was proper. For example, in Edelman v. State ex. rel. Public Disclosure Commission, 116 Wash.App. 876, 886, 68 P.3d 296 (2003), aff'd,152 Wash.2d 584, 99 P.3d 386 (2004), we held that “in promulgating WAC 390–16–311, the [Public Disclosure Commission], however well-intentioned, exceeded its statutory authority” by promulgating a rule that conflicted with plain language of the governing statute. See also Tobin v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash.2d 396, 400–404, 239 P.3d 544 (2010) (The Department erred in seeking reimbursement from a claimant's third party recovery for pain and suffering notwithstanding its argument that it believed its conduct was proper.); Wash. Fed'n of State Employees v. Dep't of Gen. Admin., 152 Wash.App. 368, 379, 383, 216 P.3d 1061 (2009) (holding that the Department acted outside the scope of its authority by promulgating certain regulations addressing bid procedures, despite its argument that it believed that it acted properly); Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Line, Inc., 113 Wash.App. 700, 702, 707, 54 P.3d 711 (2002) (The Department misread former RCW 51.08.180 (19

  4. Tingey v. Haisch

    129 Wn. App. 109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    Ambiguity involves determining whether a statute is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Edelman v. State ex. rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 882-83, 68 P.3d 296 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 584, 99 P.3d 386 (2004). Here, account receivable is ambiguous because it is subject to a number of different interpretations.

  5. Ted Rasmussen Farms, L.L.C. v. Department of Ecology

    110 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)

    A statute is ambiguous if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Edelman v. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 882, 68 P.3d 296 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 584, 99 P.3d 386 (2004). ¶16 We find the relevant statute here ambiguous.

  6. Ballard Sq. Condo. v. Dynasty Constr

    126 Wn. App. 285 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    Auto. Drivers Demonstrators Union Local No. 882 v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 92 Wn.2d 415, 420, 598 P.2d 379 (1979) (citing Hartman v. Wash. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614 (1975)), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1040 (1980).Edelman v. State ex. rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 882-83, 68 P.3d 296 (2003) (citing Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Wash. State Boundary Review Bd. for King County, 127 Wn.2d 759, 771, 903 P.2d 953 (1995)), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 584, 99 P.3d 386 (2004).Grays Harbor County, 98 Wn.2d at 607 (citing Lehman, 93 Wn.2d at 27; Garrison v. Wash. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wn.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976)).

  7. Kelsey Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Kelsey Lane Co.

    125 Wn. App. 227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that a general contractor and independent project manager were independent contractors and not agents of the project's declarant because the declarant did not retain the right to control the means by which the general contractor and manager were to perform their work

    Auto. Drivers Demonstrators Union Local No. 882 v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 92 Wn.2d 415, 420, 598 P.2d 379 (1979) (citing Hartman v. Wash. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614 (1975)), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1040 (1980).Edelman v. State ex. rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 882-83, 68 P.3d 296 (2003) (citing Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Wash. State Boundary Review Bd. for King County, 127 Wn.2d 759, 771, 903 P.2d 953 (1995)), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 584, 99 P.3d 386 (2004).Grays Harbor County, 98 Wn.2d at 607 (citing Lehman, 93 Wn.2d at 27; Garrison v. Wash. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wn.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976)).

  8. Mayflower Park Hotel v. Revenue

    98 P.3d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    (Emphasis added.)Green River Cmty. Coll. v. Higher Educ. Pers. Bd., 95 Wn.2d 108, 112, 622 P.2d 826 (1980); Edelman v. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 886, 68 P.3d 296 (2003), review granted, 150 Wn.2d 1025 (2004); Wash. Fed'n of State Employees v. State Pers. Bd., 54 Wn. App. 305, 308, 773 P.2d 421 (1989). Mayflower argues that it will suffer double taxation on the same transaction if it is taxed both (a) when it rents a room to a guest and (b) when it buys furnishings or amenities from a vendor.

  9. Hartson P'Ship v. Martinez

    123 Wn. App. 36 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that in ascertaining legislative intent, we look to the statutory scheme as a whole

    Auto. Drivers Demonstrators Union Local No. 882 v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 92 Wn.2d 415, 420, 598 P.2d 379 (1979) (citing Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614 (1975)), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1040 (1980).Edelman v. State ex. rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 882-83, 68 P.3d 296 (2003) (citing Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Wash. State Boundary Review Bd. for King County, 127 Wn.2d 759, 771, 903 P.2d 953 (1995)), review granted, 150 Wn.2d 1025 (2004).Grays Harbor County, 98 Wn.2d at 607 (citing Lehman, 93 Wn.2d at 27; Garrison v. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wn.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976)).

  10. Gorman v. Garlock, Inc.

    121 Wn. App. 530 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    We may also consider the statutes' sequence.Edelman v. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 116 Wn. App. 876, 882-83, 68 P.3d 296 (2003) (citing Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Boundary Review Bd. for King County, 127 Wn.2d 759, 771, 903 P.2d 953 (1995)), review granted, 150 Wn.2d 1025 (2004).State v. Grays Harbor County, 98 Wn.2d 606, 656, P.2d 1084 (1983) (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Lehman, 93 Wn.2d 25, 27, 604 P.2d 948 (1980); Garrison v. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wn.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976)).