Bellevue School District No. 405 v. Lee

425 P.2d 902, 70 Wash. 2d 947, 1967 Wash. LEXIS 1143
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 30, 1967
Docket38845
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 425 P.2d 902 (Bellevue School District No. 405 v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bellevue School District No. 405 v. Lee, 425 P.2d 902, 70 Wash. 2d 947, 1967 Wash. LEXIS 1143 (Wash. 1967).

Opinion

Per Curiam. —

A writ of certiorari brings for review an order adjudging public use and authorizing respondent, Bellevue School District No. 405, to acquire by condemnation 30 acres of land owned by petitioners.

Respondent school district operates 20 grade schools, 6 junior high schools, 3 high schools, and a community college. It has sites for construction of 8 more grade schools, 3 more junior high schools, a high school, and permanent facilities for the community college.

The district has a student population of 20,000 with projected growth to 26,000 in 1970 and 35,000 to 37,000 by 1980. The court takes judicial notice of the phenomenal growth of the Bellevue area since the installation of the floating bridges across Lake Washington.

Petitioners’ property, which adjoins the land heretofore acquired for a community college, is centrally located in the school district. Close to arterial roads, it would serve conveniently all existing and proposed school sites.

The district does not have a central athletic or recreational facility at the present time. The size and topography of the tract of land in question make it suitable for the district’s planned use — a football field, a field house, baseball diamonds, tennis courts, “possibly a swimming pool,” a natural park area for hiking and nature study, and other recreational facilities.

The school district’s action to acquire petitioners’ property is based upon RCW 67.20.010, which provides:

Authority to acquire and operate certain recreational facilities — Charges—Eminent domain. Any city in this state acting through its city council, or its board of park commissioners when authorized by charter or ordinance, any separately organized park district acting through its board of park commissioners or other governing officers, any school district acting through its hoard of school directors, any county acting through its board of county *949 commissioners, and any town acting through its city council shall have power, acting independently or in conjunction with the United States, the state of Washington, any county, city, park district, school district or town or any number of such public organizations to acquire any land within this state for park, playground, gymnasiums, swimming pools, field houses and other recreational facilities, bathing beach or public camp purposes and roads leading from said parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, field houses and other recreational facilities, bathing beaches, or public camps to nearby highways by donation, purchase or condemnation, and to build, construct, care for, control, supervise, improve, operate and maintain parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, field houses and other recreational facilities, bathing beaches, roads and public camps upon any such land, including the power to enact and enforce such police regulations not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the state of Washington, as are deemed necessary for the government and control of the same. The power of eminent domain herein granted shall not extend to any land outside the territorial limits of the governmental unit or units exercising said power. (Italics ours.)

Petitioners presented no evidence to the trial court. Their sole defense to respondent’s petition for condemnation was an argument that the action of the school board was a manifest abuse of discretion and was arbitrary, capricious, and fraudulent.

The evidence amply supports the trial court’s determination

That the use for which said land, real estate and premises . . . sought to be appropriated is real and in fact a public use, to wit, the establishment and maintenance of park, playground, athletic and other recreational facilities for the district. That the public interest requires the construction and maintenance of such facilities and that said land, real estate and premises sought to be condemned are required and necessary for that purpose.

For the first time, 1 petitioners, in their appellate brief, *950 urge that RCW 28.58.070 2 prevents respondent from condemning more than 15 acres of land. The contention is not even alleged in their petition for writ of certiorari.

An answer to a petition in eminent domain is not necessary. PUD No. 1 of Douglas Cy. v. Cooper, 69 Wn.2d 909, 421 P.2d 1002 (1966); State ex rel. Washington Water Power Co. v. Superior Court, 41 Wn.2d 484, 250 P.2d 536 (1952); State ex rel. McPherson Bros. Co. v. Superior Court, 148 Wash. 203, 268 Pac. 603 (1928). An answer is not required by the statute under which respondent proceeded. The landowner may, without a pleading, make any defense he sees fit to such an action. He cannot, however, make one defense in the trial court and an entirely different defense in the Supreme Court.

Petitioners chose to remain silent and did not call RCW 28.58.070 to the attention of the trial judge.

In a plethora of decisions, involving many.varying situations, this court has steadfastly adhered to the rule that a litigant cannot remain silent as to claimed error during trial and later, for the first time, urge objections thereto on appeal. The trial court must have an opportunity to consider and rule upon a litigant’s theory of the case before this court can consider it on appeal. Browning v. Johnson, ante p. 145, 422 P.2d 314 (1967); State v. Morris, ante p. 27, 422 P.2d 27 (1966); Graves v. Elliott, *951 69 Wn.2d 652, 419 P.2d 1008 (1966); Gooldy v. Golden Grain Trucking Co., 69 Wn.2d 610, 419 P.2d 582 (1966).

The order adjudging public use is affirmed.

1

This appears from the trial record and by admission in the tape-recorded oral argument in this court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

1223 Spring Street Owners Assoc, V. Randall Steichen
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2023
Anthony Deien V. Seattle City Light
527 P.3d 102 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2023)
Dawn Hill v. Joseph Mack
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
State of Washington v. William Vern Gadberry
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
State of Washington v. Jose Enrique Gonzalez Palomares
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
State of Washington v. Melvin R. O'Rourke
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2019
State of Washington v. Derek W. Schilling
442 P.3d 262 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2019)
State of Washington v. Jerremy Joe Gmeiner
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2018
State of Washington v. Markham Michael Walker Welch
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2018
State of Washington v. Richard Elliott Cain
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2018
State of Washington v. Joshua Vincent Fowler
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2018
In Re The Detention Of Troy Belcher
385 P.3d 174 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2016)
State Of Washington v. Ronald Wisner
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2016
State of Washington v. David Eugene Richards
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2014
Bank of New York v. Marco T. Barbanti
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013
Karlberg v. Otten
280 P.3d 1123 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2012)
In Re Detention of Strand
217 P.3d 1159 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)
In re the Detention of Strand
167 Wash. 2d 180 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
425 P.2d 902, 70 Wash. 2d 947, 1967 Wash. LEXIS 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellevue-school-district-no-405-v-lee-wash-1967.