discussing primary jurisdiction of federal courts and deference towards agency decisions where agency has authority to regulate, has exercised this authority, and is in the better position than a court to resolve the issue
How later courts described this case
- discussing primary jurisdiction of federal courts and deference towards agency decisions where agency has authority to regulate, has exercised this authority, and is in the better position than a court to resolve the issue
- discussing primary jurisdiction of federal courts and deference toward agency decisions where agency has authority to regulate, has exercised this authority, and is in the better position than a court to resolve the issue
- declining to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction based partly on the fact there was no challenge to an agency regulation or to agency procedures
- "[S]tan-dards to be applied in [an] antitrust action are within the conventional competence of the courts and the judgment of the agencies is not likely to be helpful in the application of these standards to the facts of this case."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brachtenbach, J.
(dissenting) — My dissent in the companion case of State v. Tacoma-Pierce County Multiple Listing Serv., 95 Wn.2d 280 , 622 P.2d 1190 (1980), is largely in point in this case and is incorporated by reference.
The only different circumstance relates to the statutory provisions governing multiple listing associations. Real estate brokers are subject to all of the other regulatory mandates discussed in the companion case.
Based upon the mentioned dissent, I would require an administrative decision before allowing maintenance of this litigation.
Stafford and Hicks, JJ., concur with Brachtenbach, J.