Foldvik v. Department of Labor & Industries

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Act contemplates that some discrimination between providers is allowed so long as it is reasonable
• explaining that a party does not possess an absolute right to the project they propose “simply because their construction constitutes a permitted use”
• noting that two other cellular providers had been licensed by the FCC for the area, and based on recent hirings it appeared likely that at least one would soon deploy and make applications
• stating that substantial evidence \ \ 'means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion' \ \ (quotation omitted)
• holding denial of application to construct towers to fill holes in coverage will not amount to prohibition of service where lack of coverage likely will be de minimis, as “holes in coverage are very limited in number or size”
• finding substantial evidence to support board's conclusion of significant negative aesthetic impact where real estate experts stated towers would reduce property values by 10% to 25%

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).