125 Wash. 2d 345 - Whatcom County v. Brisbane’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 2019
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 87 Wash. 2d 847 - Leonard v. City of Bothell · 117 Wash. 2d 606 - Employco Personnel Services, Inc. v. City of Seattle · Neils v. City of Seattle · 94 Wash. 2d 740 - Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Seattle · 99 Wash. 2d 339 - Citizens for Financially Responsible Government v. City of Spokane
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Whatcom County Home Rule Charter may grant the people the right of referendum over ordinances enacted by the County. However, allowing exercise of that right over ordinances enacted pursuant to the Growth Management Act would run counter to and frustrate the declared purposes of the Act to prevent uncoordinated and unplanned growth and to encourage conservation and wise use of land.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]ermitting the referendum would jeopardize [the] entire state plan [as intended by the Growth Management Act] and thus would extend beyond a matter of local concern.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The legislature finds the uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.