Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County
| Docket Number | 86293-1 |
| Decision Date | 24 October 2013 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
19 cases
-
Hoober v. Movement Mortg., LLC
...executed together "should be read and construed together as one contract ." Dkt. 14 at 14 (quoting Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cty. , 178 Wash.2d 763, 784–85, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) ). Section 12 of Mordue's Agreement, titled "Governing Law" states that "[t]he terms of this Agreem......
-
Kissan Berry Farm v. Whatcom Farmers Coop
...action's success is determined by the plaintiff's ability to prove facts supporting those theories. Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wash.2d 763, 779, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013). Here, the farms’ theory of recovery is not the defendants’ to choose.We also do not address respond......
-
City of Snoqualmie v. King Cnty. Exec. Dow Constantine
...874, 879, 905 P.2d 324 (1995). We have applied the three-factor Covell test to several government charges. See , e.g ., Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v . King County , 178 Wash.2d 763, 808, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (credit enhancement charge); Arborwood Idaho , LLC v . City of Kennewick , 151......
-
Pelly v. Panasyuk
...and are executed at the same time should be read and construed together as one contract.' " Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wash.2d 763, 784-85, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (quoting Turner v. Wexler, 14 Wash. App. 143, 146, 538 P.2d 877 (1975) ); see also Kruger, 106 Wash.2d at......
Get Started for Free
7 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...v. Snohomish Cnty., 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981):2.2(7), 8.7(1) Cedar River Water and Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty., 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013):8.11(3) Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158 Wn.2d 194, 142 P.3d 155 (2006): 8.12(1) Chelan Basin Conserv. v. GBI Holding Co., No. 33196-2-III, 2016 ......
-
Table of Cases
...Cnty., 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981): 7.5(3), 9.4(10), 15.3(4) Cedar River Water and Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty., 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013): 8.10(6) Chambers v. City of Mount Vernon, 11 Wn. App. 357, 522 P.2d 1184 (1974): 19.3(5)(b), 19.5(2) Champa v. Wash. Compressed Gas Co., 1......
-
Table of Cases
...21.4(5) Cecil v. Dominy, 69 Wn.2d 289, 418 P.3d 233 (1966): 17.6(4) Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013): 21.5(2)(c) Chamber of Commerce v. Dep't of Fisheries, 119 Wn.2d 464, 832 P.2d 1310 (1992): 21.4(2) Chandler v. Doran Co., 44 Wn.2d 396, 26......
-
§ 21.5 Filing and Service Requirements for Initiating Judicial Review Proceedings and Cross Appeals
...even though the decision is illegal or erroneous on its face. Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 781, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013); Habitat Watch, 155 Wn.2d at 407; Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 925-26, 52 P.3d 1 (2002); Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.2d at 18082......
Get Started for Free