Reeder v. King County, 35425
| Citation | 358 P.2d 810,57 Wn.2d 563 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35425,35425 |
| Parties | Thomas A. REEDER and Mardelle Esther Reeder, his wife, Appellants, v. KING COUNTY and the Board of County Commissioners of King County, and Howard Odel, Ed Munro and Scott Wallace, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Geo. H. Crandell, Seattle, for appellants.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Derrill T. Bastian, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondents.
This is an action brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW 7.24, seeking a declaration of appellants' alleged right to have certain real property re-zoned by the Board of Commissioners of King County.
Appellants own land that abuts on U. S. Highway No. 10, a few miles east of Lake Washington. In 1958, appellants properly applied to the county commissioners to have their land re-zoned from the use designated as R-A (single residence) to R-3 (multiple residence, trailer court). The application was referred to the King County Planning Commission, which recommended that it be granted. In March of 1959, the commissioners re-zoned three nearby lots from R-A to R-3, but did not change the classification of appellants' property.
Appellants thereupon brought this action for a declaratory judgment, alleging that the conduct of the county commissioners was arbitrary, wrongful, capricious, and in violation of appellants' rights. The county's demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the trial court.
The Declaratory Judgments Act should be liberally interpreted in order to facilitate its socially desirable objective of providing remedies not previously countenanced by our law. However, a plaintiff is not entitled to relief by way of a declaratory judgment if, otherswise, he has a completely adequate remedy available to him. Kahin v. Lewis, 1953, 42 Wash.2d 897, 259 P.2d 420; Hawk v. Mayer, 1950, 36 Wash.2d 858, 220 P.2d 885; Jacobsen v. King County Medical Service Corp., 1945, 23 Wash.2d 324, 160 P.2d 1019; Peoples Park & Amusement Ass'n, Inc. v. Anrooney, 1939, 200 Wash. 51, 93 P.2d 362.
Although appellants did not have a right to appeal to the superior court, the writ of certiorari was available to them and would have afforded them all relief to which they may be entitled in this case. State ex rel. Lyon v. Board of County Commissioners, 1948, 31 Wash.2d 366, 196 P.2d 997; RCW 7.16.040.
Inasmuch as we have concluded that appellants were improperly before the court, we agree with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downey v. Pierce Cnty.
...interests; and “a judicial determination of” the issues “will be final and conclusive.”); Reeder v. King County, 57 Wash.2d 563, 564, 358 P.2d 810 (1961) (“[P]laintiff is not entitled to relief by way of a declaratory judgment if, otherwise, he has a completely adequate remedy available to ......
-
Civil Survival Project v. State
...Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County, 110 Wash. App. 92, 98 n. 3, 38 P.3d 1040 (2002). Grandmaster relies in turn on Reeder v. King County, 57 Wash.2d 563, 564, 358 P.2d 810 (1961) (holding that "a plaintiff is not entitled to relief by way of a declaratory judgment if, otherwise, he has a completel......
-
Sorenson v. City of Bellingham
...of whether declaratory relief can be granted when alternative remedies are available has been summarized in Reeder v. King County, 57 Wash.2d 563, 564, 358 P.2d 810 (1961). The Declaratory Judgments Act should be liberally interpreted in order to facilitate its socially desirable objective ......
-
City of Federal Way v. King County
...has another completely adequate remedy, he or she "is not entitled to relief by way of a declaratory judgment". Reeder v. King Cy., 57 Wash.2d 563, 564, 358 P.2d 810 (1961); accord Council of Camp Fire, 105 Wash.2d at 58, 711 P.2d 300. Thus, in a typical land use case, e.g., one which chall......