1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 125 P.3d
  5. 125 P.3d 148 (2005)
 

MOWER v. KING COUNTY

No. 55302-0-I.

125 P.3d 148 (2005)

130 Wash.App. 707

Dana B. MOWER, an individual, and Tiger Mountain, LLC Applicant, Appellants, v. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the Department of Development and Environmental Services, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.

Publication Ordered December 16, 2005.

Reconsideration Denied January 12, 2006.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Eric Ronald Hultman, Dann & Meacham, Seattle, WA, for Appellants.

Michael Joseph Sinsky, Stephen Paul Hobbs, Peter George Ramels, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

GROSSE, J.

¶ 1 The deposit of fill in sensitive areas requires a permit in King County. Dana Mower did not apply for a permit and was properly cited for his actions. Moreover, given the propriety of the notice of violation, Mower is not entitled to the return of his performance bonds and financial guarantees or entitled to compel the County to make a final inspection of his plat until the violations are cured. We affirm the decisions of the

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases