# Landmark Development, Inc. v. City of Roy

> Washington Supreme Court · July 22, 1999 · 138 Wash. 2d 561

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711743

## Case

- **Full name:** Landmark Development, Inc. v. City of Roy
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 22, 1999
- **Citations:** 138 Wash. 2d 561; 980 P.2d 1234; 1999 Wash. LEXIS 514
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Alexander
- **Judges:** Alexander, Johnson, Sanders
- **Cited by:** 111 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711743

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing "the judicial doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the expression of one is the exclusion of the other"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711743. Public record. Not legal advice.