State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court
| Decision Date | 03 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 45673,45673 |
| Citation | 92 Wn.2d 106,594 P.2d 448 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington ex rel. Robert E. SCHILLBERG, Petitioner, v. EVERETT DISTRICT JUSTICE COURT, Donald E. Priest, Judge, Defendant, Oliver Keith Jergensen, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Robert E. Schillberg, Snohomish County Pros. Atty., Everett, for petitioner.
Cooper & Lyderson, Donald J. Lyderson, Everett, for respondent.
The sole question in this appeal is the validity of a Snohomish County ordinance relating to motor boats on certain lakes, specifically Lake Bosworth.
Lake Bosworth is located in Snohomish County and is one of the larger of many lakes in the county. It has an area of 95.4 acres and a maximum depth of 80 feet. The use of the lake is recreational, including fishing, swimming and diving. It is one of the lakes in Snohomish County where the use of internal combustion motors is absolutely prohibited, except for law enforcement and certain other specified purposes. The ordinance sets forth reasons for that prohibition, which are the danger of pollution from internal combustion motors and the hazard which might result from their operation. The use of electric motors is not prohibited.
No question of fact is involved. The defendant admits operation of a motor boat at the time and place charged, admits such operation violated the ordinance, if it is valid, and admits the enactment of the ordinance was procedurally valid. Defendant challenges the ordinance on the ground that it conflicts with a Washington statute.
This case was instituted in the District Court for Snohomish County where the action was dismissed on the basis of invalidity of the ordinance. Upon appeal to the Superior Court the action was reinstated, the District Court was reversed and the matter was remanded to the District Court for trial. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Superior Court was reversed and the charge was dismissed. 19 Wash.App. 421, 575 P.2d 1096 (1978). The opinion of the Court of Appeals discusses many matters which had not been presented in the District Court or in the Superior Court. In oral argument in this Court the parties specifically limited the issues to the matter of conflict with a state statute, which was the issue considered in the trial court. We will discuss only that matter.
The authority of county commissioners to enact ordinances comes from the Constitution and is Legislative in character. Const. art. 11, § 11 states:
Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.
Defendant's contention is that the ordinance prohibits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1000 Friends of Washington v. McFarland
...of legislative intent. Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wash.2d 678, 695, 958 P.2d 273 (1998); State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court, 92 Wash.2d 106, 108, 594 P.2d 448 (1979). Thus, prohibition of referenda is found only with a clear statement by the legislature precluding th......
-
City of Seattle v. Eze
...a wider scope of activity than the other. Republic v. Brown, 97 Wash.2d at 919, 652 P.2d 955; State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court, 92 Wash.2d 106, 108, 594 P.2d 448 (1979); Schampera, 57 Wash.2d at 111, 356 P.2d 292; State v. Rabon, 45 Wash.App. 832, 836-38, 727 P.2d 995......
-
Weden v. San Juan County
...We have previously addressed a similar argument and established an analysis to be followed. In State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court, 92 Wash.2d 106, 594 P.2d 448 (1979), we reviewed a Snohomish County ordinance that prohibited the use of internal combustion motors on "cer......
-
Isla Verde Intern. v. City of Camas
...of the power to legislate on particular subjects unless that clearly is the legislative intent. State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court, 92 Wash.2d 106, 108, 594 P.2d 448 (1979). RCW 35A.01.010, the optional municipal code statute, under which Lacey operates, gives the munic......
-
The Continuing Tobacco War: State and Local Tobacco Control in Washington
...v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278, 957 P.2d 621 (1998). 93. See State of Washington v. Everett Dist. Justice Ct., 92 Wash. 2d 106, 594 P.2d 448 94. See Weden, 135 Wash. 2d at 700, 958 P.2d at 284. 95. See id. 96. See Homes Unlimited, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wash. 2d 154, 579 P.2d 133......