recognizing "the judicial doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the expression of one is the exclusion of the other"
How later courts described this case
- recognizing "the judicial doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the expression of one is the exclusion of the other"
- under doctrine of "expressio unius et exclusio alterius," where a statute specifically designates the things or classes of things upon which it operates, an inference arises that all things or classes of things omitted were done so intentionally
- under doctrine of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute specifically designates the things or classes of things upon which it operates, an inference arises that all things or classes of things omitted were done so intentionally
- "the expression of one is the exclusion of the other"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Alexander, J.
(concurring in part) — I agree with Justice Sanders that the City of Roy violated RCW 35.92.025 when it failed to deduct federal grant money before calculating the water connection fee it charged Landmark. To offset what would otherwise be a windfall to Roy, the fee charged to Landmark should be recalculated. I do not, however, agree with Justice Sanders that the trial court was correct in concluding that Roy acted arbitrarily and capriciously in charging Landmark a different fee than it charged another developer, New Concept. Although Roy, in my view, incorrectly computed the fee charged to Landmark, I cannot conclude that its action was unreasoning. It did not, therefore, violate RCW 64.40.020(1).
Madsen, J., concurs with Alexander, J.