Birnel v. Town of Fircrest
This text of 335 P.2d 819 (Birnel v. Town of Fircrest) 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.
Opinions
Plaintiff commenced this action to have ordinance No. 323 of the town of Fircrest declared .unconstitutional.and,to enjoin the town from adding to the city water supply
“. . . a source of fluoridation approved by the State Department of Health . . . under the rules and regulations of the State Board of Health, such addition to be administered in a manner approved by the State Department of Health.”
A demurrer was sustained to plaintiff’s amended complaint; she elected not to plead further and now appeals from a judgment dismissing her action with prejudice.
The judgment is affirmed on the authority of Kaul v. Chehalis, 45 Wn. (2d) 616, 277 P. (2d) 352 (1954).
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
335 P.2d 819, 53 Wash. 2d 830, 1959 Wash. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birnel-v-town-of-fircrest-wash-1959.