Opinion

State Ex Rel. Ogden v. City of Bellevue

  • 45 Wash. 2d 492
  • 275 P.2d 899
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 4, 1954
Status
Published
Author
Hamley
On the bench
Mallery, Hamley
Cited by
68 cases

“The right accrues at the time an application for a building permit is made.” (emphasis added)

How later courts described this case

  • “The right accrues at the time an application for a building permit is made.” (emphasis added)
  • "The right accrues at the time an application for a building permit is made."; Hull, 53 Wash.2d at 130, 331 P.2d 856 ("[T]he right vests when the party ... applies for his building permit, if that permit is thereafter issued."
  • relying on Hardy in establishing the Washington "date of application" vested rights rule
  • right vested when the city attempted to rezone upon receiving building permit

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Hamley, J.

(concurring)—I concur in the conclusion (but not in all of the views expressed) that appellant is entitled to receive a permit to construct a combination residence and business building as applied for, and is entitled to have either the adjacent leased tract or the designated portion of his own B-l property zoned or otherwise certified for busiriéss parking.

This calls for reversal of the judgment in the first of the three suits here under review (King county cause No. 462113) and for issuance of the writ there prayed for. The majority opinion, however, also has the effect of reversing the judgments for respondents entered in the other two *497 causes (Kang county causes Nos. 462153 and 462760), in which appellant seeks to restrain the placing in effect of ordinances rezoning to A-l his own B-l property and the ádjacent leased B-l property.

This, too, may be warranted, in view of the fact that these rezoning proceedings were instituted in an attempt to deprive appellant of the business building permit. But I think it ought to be noted, and I take this means of doing so, that the reversal of the judgments in these last two cases should not be taken as res judicata as to the city’s right, at some future time, to rezone these B-l tracts to some more limited classification, provided the city recognizes appellant’s right to continue, as a nonconforming use, whatever business is then being carried on in the structure then existing.

Finley, J., concurs with Hamley, J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.