CAPR v. Sims’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
19 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Dolan v. City of Tigard · Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS · 124 Wash. 2d 261 - Trimen Development Co. v. King County · 124 Wash. 2d 240 - Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell · 113 Wash. 2d 402 - R/L ASSOCIATES, INC. v. City of Seattle
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as provided in RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090, no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, ... on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land. However, this section does not preclude dedications of land or easements within the proposed development or plat which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement is to apply.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the. . . development . . . of land.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a uniform requirement for cleared area on each lot, unrelated to any evaluation of the demonstrated impact of proposed development.”
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.