From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State

Supreme Court of Washington
Jul 27, 2001
27 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2001)

Opinion


27 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2001) AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 587, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, THE $ 30 LICENSE TAB INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN, Appellant-Intervenor. VASHON-MAURY ISLAND COMMUNITY COUNCIL, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, THE $ 30 LICENSE TAB INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN, Appellant-Intervenor. CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, THE $ 30 LICENSE TAB INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN, Appellant-Intervenor. TACOMA WATER, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, THE $ 30 LICENSE TAB INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN, Appellant-Intervenor. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, THE $ 30 LICENSE TAB INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN, Appellant-Intervenor. PORT OF WHITMAN COUNTY, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON and THE $ 30 LICENSE TAB INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN, Appellants. PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant No. 69433-8 Supreme Court of Washington July 27, 2001

          Gerry L. Alexander, Chief Justice. APPROVED: Madsen, J.

         ORDER CHANGING OPINION

         Gerry L. Alexander, J.

         It is hereby ordered that the opinion in the above cause, as the same appears at 142 Wn.2d 183, be changed as follows:

         1. The caption of the opinion, is changed to read as set forth above.

         2. In the eighth line from the top of page 197, the sentence beginning with the words " In Tacoma Water" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place:

In Tacoma Water v. State, Tacoma Water (a division of Tacoma's Department of Public Utilities), Covington Water District, Lakehaven Utility District, Seattle Public Utilities (a Seattle city department), and individual E.E. (Ted) Coates (an individual voter paying rates and taxes) sought a declaratory judgment that the voter approval requirements of section 2 of I-695 do not apply to water rates or other utility charges (including charges for goods, services, or benefits provided in exchange for monetary or other consideration), to local improvement assessments, to connection or capacity charges, or to intergovernmental and intragovernmental payments and charges.

         3. In the 16th line from the bottom of page 198, the sentence beginning with the words " The $ 30" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place:

The $ 30 License Tab Initiative Campaign (the Campaign) was a defendant in Port of Whitman County v. State and intervened in all other cases except Puget Sound Clean Air Agency v. State.

         4. In the 12th line from the bottom of page 198, the words " Superior Court" are inserted after the word " County."

         5. In the first line on page 217, the word " similar" is deleted and the word " similarly" is inserted in its place.

         6. In the seventh line from the bottom of page 231, the word " election" is inserted after the words " before a referendum."

         7. In the 15th line from the top of page 254, the word " and" is deleted and the word " but" is inserted in its place.


Summaries of

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State

Supreme Court of Washington
Jul 27, 2001
27 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2001)
Case details for

Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State

Case Details

Full title:AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 587, Respondent, v. THE STATE OF…

Court:Supreme Court of Washington

Date published: Jul 27, 2001

Citations

27 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2001)

Citing Cases

Wash. Food Indus. Ass'n v. City of Seattle

Amalg. Transit Union Loc. 587 v. State , 142 Wn.2d 183, 205, 11 P.3d 762 (2000) 27 P.3d 608 (2001). We…

Supervalu, Inc. v. Labor Indus

When analyzing a statute enacted through an initiative, our purpose "is to ascertain the collective intent of…