In re C.S., H.S., L.S., C.S., and M.S.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing the evolution of the vested rights doctrine and applying its holding that the doctrine is purely statutory
• discussing the evolution of the vested rights doctrine and applying its holding that the doctrine is purely statutory
• declining to extend doctrine to shoreline substantial development permits because “the legislature was aware of the then-existing common law regarding the vested rights doctrine” when it enacted RCW 19.27.095(1
• declining to extend doctrine to shoreline substantial development permits because “the legislature was aware of the then-existing common law regarding the vested rights doctrine” when it enacted RCW 19.27.095(1
• ‘Washington’s vested rights doctrine originated at common law but is now statutory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).