Bellevue School Dist. No. 405 v. Lee
| Decision Date | 30 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 38845,38845 |
| Citation | 70 Wn.2d 947,425 P.2d 902 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | BELLEVUE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 405, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. R. R. LEE, a/k/a Rhoady R. Lee, and Elizabeth M. Lee, his wife, Petitioners. |
Beresford & Booth, Robert O. Beresford, Wayne C. Booth, Robert W. McKisson, Jr., Seattle, for petitioners.
Preston, Thorgrimson, Horowitz, Starin & Ellis, Gordon G. Conger, Seattle, for respondent.
A writ of certiorari brings for review an order adjudging public use and authorizing respondent, Bellevue School District No. 405, to acquire by condemnation 30 acres of land owned by petitioners.
Respondent school district operates 20 grade schools, 6 junior high schools, 3 high schools, and a community college. It has sites for construction of 8 more grade schools, 3 more junior high schools, a high school, and permanent facilities for the community college.
The district has a student population of 20,000 with projected growth to 26,000 in 1970 and 35,000 to 37,000 by 1980. The court takes judicial notice of the phenomenal growth of the Bellevue area since the installation of the floating bridges across Lake Washington.
Petitioners' property, which adjoins the land heretofore acquired for a community college, is centrally located in the school district. Close to arterial roads, it would serve conveniently all existing and proposed school sites.
The district does not have a central athletic or recreational facility at the present time. The size and topography of the tract of land in question make it suitable for the district's planned use--a football field, a field house, baseball diamonds, tennis courts, 'possibly a swimming pool,' a natural park area for hiking and nature study, and other recreational facilities.
The school district's action to acquire petitioners' property is based upon RCW 67.20.010, which provides:
Authority to acquire and operate certain recreational facilities--Charges--Eminent domain. Any city in this state acting through its city council, or its board of park commissioners when authorized by charter or ordinance, any separately organized park district acting through its board of park commissioners or other governing officers, Any school district acting through its board of school directors, any county acting through its board of county commissioners, and any town acting through its city council Shall have power, acting independently or in conjunction with the United States, the state of Washington, any county, city, park district, school district or town or any number of such public organizations To acquire any land within this state for park, playground, gymnasiums, swimming pools, field houses and other recreational facilitics, bathing beach or public camp purposes and roads leading from said parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, field houses and other recreational facilities, bathing beaches, or public camps to nearby highways By donation, purchase or Condemnation, and to build, construct, care for, control, supervise, improve, operate and maintain parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, field houses and other recreational facilities, bathing beaches, roads and public camps upon any such land, including the power to enact and enforce such police regulations not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state of Washington, as are deemed necessary for the government and control of the same. The power of eminent domain herein granted shall not extend to any land outside the territorial limits of the governmental unit or units exercising said power. (Italics ours.)
Petitioners presented no evidence to the trial court. Their Sole defense to respondent's petition for condemnation was an argument that the action of the school board was a manifest abuse of discretion and was arbitrary, capricious, and fraudulent.
The evidence amply supports the trial court's determination
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fisher
...is the trial court's ruling on a specific issue that allows this court to consider the issue on appeal. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Lee, 70 Wash.2d 947, 950, 425 P.2d 902, 904 (1967) ("The trial court must have an opportunity to consider and rule upon a litigant's theory of the case befo......
-
In re Detention of Strand
...urge objections thereto on appeal.'" State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 421, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) (quoting Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Lee, 70 Wash.2d 947, 950, 425 P.2d 902 (1967)). Strand failed to object to the use of Dr. Longwell's report and failed to assert that his statements were a......
-
In re Belcher
...objections thereto on appeal.’ " State v. Guloy , 104 Wash.2d 412, 421, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) (quoting Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Lee , 70 Wash.2d 947, 950, 425 P.2d 902 (1967) ).¶47 The rationale for this rule has been explained as follows:"[T]he trial court should be given an opportuni......
-
State v. Richards
...trial and later, for the first time, urge objectionsthereto on appeal.'" Guloy, 104 Wn.2d at 421 (quoting Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Lee, 70 Wn.2d 947, 950, 425 P.2d 902 (1967)). Richards waived any objection under ER 404(b).9STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS In a pro se statement of addi......