Anderson v. Pierce County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there was standing where chairman of organization testified that he owned property adjacent to project site and that proposed mitigation would be insufficient to control storm water runoff that would damage his property
• finding sufficient allegations to support injury in fact where a coalition member testified he owned 60 acres adjacent to the proposed project and his property would be damaged by storm water runoff from the project site
• finding sufficient allegations to support injury in fact where a coalition member testified he owned 60 acres adjacent to the proposed project and his property would be damaged by storm water runoff from the project site
• “With [an] MDNS, promulgation of a formal EIS is not required, although . . . environmental studies and analysis may be quite comprehensive.”
• “Under SEPA, before a local government processes a permit application for a private land use project, it must make a ‘threshold determination’ of whether the project is a ‘major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).