Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit 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 \RAP 13.4(c)(5) requires a concise statement of the issues presented for review\ and that RAP 13.7(b) limits review only to those issues properly raised in the petition as directed in RAP 13.4(c)(5)
• holding that “RAP 13.4(c)(5) requires a concise statement of the issues presented for review” and that RAP 13.7(b) limits review only to those issues properly raised in the petition as directed in RAP 13.4(c)(5)
• describing the use of hydraulic clam rakes to harvest clams without reseeding or culturing the clams
• in the context of RCW 90.58.140, \development\ and \substantial development\ are terms of art by virtue of the definitions in RCW 90.58.030(3)(d) and (e)
• court rejected argument that an appeal of part of a Court of Appeals decision amounts to a request to review every aspect of that decision
• court rejected argument that an appeal of part of a Court of Appeals decision amounts to a request to review every aspect of that decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).