Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County

134 Citing cases

  1. Hayes v. City of Seattle

    131 Wn. 2d 706 (Wash. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Holding agency action arbitrary and capricious where agency's findings were too conclusory to show consideration of the facts and circumstances

    Indeed, we have previously held that writ actions cannot be used to decide damages issues and must be brought separately. Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 114, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079 (1993). Finally, nothing in the subsequent action for damages destroyed or impaired any right established in the action for judicial review.

  2. Savage v. State

    127 Wn. 2d 434 (Wash. 1995)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that personal immunity of the officer does not extend to the state in respondeat superior context

    The Court of Appeals also relied for its holding on a series of cases in which the immunity of government employees was extended to the government. Savage v. State, 72 Wn. App. 483, 488-89, 491, 864 P.2d 1009, review granted, 124 Wn.2d 1017 (1994) (citing Creelman v. Svenning, 67 Wn.2d 882, 410 P.2d 606 (1966)); Plotkin v. Department of Corrections, 64 Wn. App. 373, 826 P.2d 221, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1022 (1992); Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1044 (1993); Frost v. City of Walla Walla, 106 Wn.2d 669, 724 P.2d 1017 (1986); Guffey v. State, 103 Wn.2d 144, 690 P.2d 1163 (1984). The appellate court's analysis in this case resembles that recently rejected by this court in Lutheran.

  3. Estate of Hansen

    81 Wn. App. 270 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that police department frequently obtained prior approval from Kent City Attorney, even though such approval was not required, before pursuing seizures warrants

    In Hayes v. City of Seattle, 76 Wn. App. 877, 880, 888 P.2d 1227, review granted, 127 Wn.2d 1009 (1995), this court ruled that res judicata did not bar a civil rights claim which was not brought and joined with a permit applicant's writ action in a land use case. Although the permit applicant could have combined his writ and damages claims into a single action, see Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 95, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079 (1993), writ applications are subject to very short statutes of limitation. Section 1983 claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations.

  4. In re Feature Realty Litigation

    No. CV-05-333-AAM (E.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2006)

    "The fact that the disjunctive `or' is used in the first part of the statute shows that acting either arbitrarily and capriciously or unlawfully or in excess of lawful authority will create a cause of action." Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 112, 829 P.2d 746 (1992) (emphasis in original). "Arbitrary and capricious" acts are "willful" acts. Brell v. City of Bremerton, 80 Wn.2d 518, 526, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972) (defining "arbitrary and capricious" as involving "willful and unreasonable action without consideration, and [in] disregard of facts or circumstances").

  5. Mission Springs v. City of Spokane

    134 Wn. 2d 947 (Wash. 1998)   Cited 55 times
    In Mission Springs, the city council voted to withhold a grading permit from an applicant that had a legally vested right to the permit.

    A county is an agency for the purpose of this statute. RCW 64.40.010(1); Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 117, 119, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079, 113 S. Ct. 1044, 122 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993). "[C]onclusory action taken without regard to the surrounding facts and circumstances is arbitrary and capricious.

  6. Blackburn v. State

    No. 39012-8-III (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2023)

    Quasi-judicial immunity attaches to persons or entities who perform functions so comparable to those performed by judges that the persons should share the judge's absolute immunity while performing those functions. Savage v. State, 127 Wn.2d 434, 441, 899 P.2d 1270 (1995); Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 99, 829 P.2d 746 (1992). When quasi-judicial immunity applies, an absolute bar precludes civil liability.

  7. Hayes v. Seattle

    76 Wn. App. 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 11 times
    Rejecting contention that writ applicant in land use case was required by doctrine of res judicata to bring § 1983 civil rights claim at same time as writ action; such a requirement would effectively reduce three year statute of limitation to 30 days

    Application for a writ of review and a claim for damages under RCW 64.40 should be brought as a single action. See Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish Cy., 119 Wn.2d 91, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1044 (1993). Even where the separate claims are disposed of sequentially, this approach makes clear to all parties what is at stake in the review process and efficiently disposes of all claims.

  8. Roberson v. Perez

    156 Wn. 2d 33 (Wash. 2005)   Cited 195 times
    Holding appellants could raise issue for the first time on appeal under RAP 2.5

    ¶20 Law of the case is a doctrine that derives from both RAP 2.5(c)(2) and common law. This multifaceted doctrine means different things in different circumstances, Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 113, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), and is often confused with other closely related doctrines, including collateral estoppel, res judicata, and stare decisis. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue determined against that party in an earlier action, even if the second action differs significantly from the first one.

  9. Wilson v. Seattle

    863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993)   Cited 11 times

    This court recently held that the Legislature, in enacting RCW 64.40, intended to abrogate the rule of vicarious municipal immunity for the quasi-judicial acts of its officials. Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish Cy., 119 Wn.2d 91, 103, 829 P.2d 746 (1992), cert. denied, 122 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). The court held that under RCW 64.40.020 an "agency", which includes cities, can be liable for the quasi-judicial acts of its land use officials.

  10. Manna Funding, LLC v. Kittitas Cnty.

    295 P.3d 1197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment dismissing tortious interference claim for failure to produce evidence of the first two elements

    Manna reasons that a site-specific rezone application involves quasi-judicial decisionmaking, thus subjecting an agency to liability under RCW 64.40.020. Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wash.2d 91, 103–05, 111, 829 P.2d 746 (1992). This is in contrast to area-wide rezones, which are legislative in nature and subject to a different review procedure under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW.