Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a motion to dismiss pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) should be granted only if the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would justify recovery
• noting that a motion to dismiss pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) should be granted only if the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would justify recovery
• “Unless the superior court takes new evidence under RCW 34.05.562, its findings are not relevant in appellate review of an agency action.”
• “Thus, a minimum flow set by rule is an existing right which may not be impaired by subsequent groundwater withdrawals.”
• “[A]n agency’s view of the statute will not be accorded deference if it conflicts with the statute.”
• WAC [original page 5] 371-08-485 allows \Ecology and all other parties to present all relevant information for the [PCHB] to make a decision\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).