PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology

How courts have described this case

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

• under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)’s error of law standard, courts “determine[] the meaning and purpose of a statute de novo” (citing Postema v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 77, 11 P.3d 726 (2000))
• “The [d]istrict engaged in repeated, and ongoing attempts to come up with a feasible hydroelectric project. It did not simply wait until economic conditions improved or future events occurred that provided uses for water.”
• “The [d]istrict engaged in repeated, and ongoing attempts 14 to come up with a feasible hydroelectric project. It did not simply wait until 15 economic conditions improved or future events occurred that provided uses for 16 water.”
• \Statutory forfeiture [under RCW 90.14.130-.180] does not require intent to abandon.\
• \Statutory forfeiture [under RCW 90.14.130-.180] does not require intent to abandon.\
• distinguishing beneficial use and waiting for economic 6 benefit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).