Stafne v. Snohomish County

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to consider a UDJA claim when the plaintiff actually pleaded an alternative remedy
• approving trial court’s jury instruction 6 that “[i]f it is found that the loss was caused by one or more non-excluded event(s) in combination 7 with one or more excluded event(s); the loss is covered”
• “[A] party challenging a decision related to a comprehensive plan must seek review before the growth board first.”
• \[A] party challenging a decision related to a comprehensive plan must seek review before the growth board first.\
• “County and city councils have legislative discretion in deciding to amend or not amend their comprehensive plans.”
• “neither the board nor a court can grant relief (that is, order a legislative discretionary act)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).