80 Wash. 2d 139 - Durocher v. King County’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Company (1979), 81 Wash. 2d 292 - Fleming v. City of Tacoma (1972)
43 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 34 Cal. 2d 614 - Essick v. City of Los Angeles · 47 Wash. 2d 629 - Lillions v. Gibbs · Cadem v. Nanna · 45 Wash. 2d 492 - State Ex Rel. Ogden v. City of Bellevue · Neils 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[pursuant to] a plan already adopted by the legislative body itself ...”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unclassified Uses Section 2200: The following uses are found to possess characteristics relating to their size, numbers of people involved, the traffic generated, and their immediate impact on the area which makes impractical their being identified exclusively with any particular zone classification as herein defined. In order to determine that the location of these uses will not be unreasonably incompatible with uses permitted in the surrounding areas; and to permit the Planning Commission to make further stipulations and conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic intent of this Resolution will be served, these uses will be subject to review by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners and the issuance of an Unclassified Use Permit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“policies ... approved and recommended by the planning agency or initiated by the board and approved by motion by the board”. RCW 36.70.020(6). The board may, by ordinance, either create a planning commission or a plan ning department. RCW 36.70.030, .040. The board may adopt by ordinance "official controls”, which further the goals of the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70.550. Both parties cite various provisions in the Act that ostensibly demonstrate to whom the Legislature delegated authority. S.O.S. Park relies on RCW 36.70.050, which provides that "[u]pon the creation of a planning agency as authorized in RCW 36.70.030 and 36.70.040, a county may engage in a planning program”. (Italics ours.) RCW 36.70.060 and .070 contain similar references to "a county”
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.