Port of Peninsula v. Bendiksen

2 Citing cases

  1. Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County

    65 Wn. App. 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that claims for refund of park development fees were barred by the 30-day limitation period for challenging a plat

    [6] Trimen further argues that estoppel has no application in a challenge to a wholly or absolutely void assessment. Port of Peninsula v. Bendiksen, 71 Wn.2d 530, 534, 429 P.2d 859 (1967). Here, however, the County did have the fundamental authority under RCW 58.17.110 to require of this developer dedications of land or, under RCW 82.02.020, fees in lieu thereof.

  2. Parente v. Day

    241 N.E.2d 280 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 10 times
    In Parente, the Cuyahoga County Commissioners adopted a resolution that authorized construction of a sewage treatment plant and created an assessment in the city of Brecksville. Four years later, and after the tap-ins had been completed, the county commissioners established a schedule of tap-in charges for certain affected homes.

    Melvin v. Chillicothe (1960), 112 Ohio App. 521; assessing lands outside the corporate boundaries of a city. Port of Peninsula v. Bendiksen (Wash., 1967), 429 P.2d 859; assessing lands that were exempt from assessment. Forest Hill Cemetery Co. v. Ann Arbor (1942), 303 Mich. 56, 5 N.W.2d 564; assessing property owners for paving of a street when it had been formally dedicated as a boulevard.