State v. Bank of California

491 P.2d 697, 5 Wash. App. 861, 1971 Wash. App. LEXIS 1134
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedDecember 3, 1971
Docket585-2
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 491 P.2d 697 (State v. Bank of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Bank of California, 491 P.2d 697, 5 Wash. App. 861, 1971 Wash. App. LEXIS 1134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

Pearson, J.

This matter is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the denial of an order adjudicating public use and necessity to a 50 by 1,350 foot strip of land in *862 Pierce County. Petitioner, represented by the Highway Department, sought initially to condemn 11.80 acres of respondents’ 18.26-acre tract for the purpose of constructing a diamond interchange on State Route 16 near Gig Harbor. The order was granted for all land except the narrow disputed strip. Referring to the unsealed sketch on page 863, respondents’ tract is located within dotted lines, generally east of State Route 16. The unshaded area within the dotted lines is not to be condemned and is presently covered with trees. The Olympic Village Shopping Center, in private ownership, is adjacent to that tract and generally between the tract and the highway. Part of the 11.80-acre taking is to be used to reroute an existing 100-foot-wide Tacoma City Light right-of-way around the interchange. In the original plan, the power line was to run along the eastern boundary of respondents’ tract, which also borders on the Rushmore residential area. Pursuant to demands from Rushmore residents and other citizens at the access hearing, 1 the Highway Department reviewed its plan and concluded that the power line could be moved 50 feet closer to the interchange and a 50 by 1,350 foot strip of trees presently on the land could remain between Rushmore and the power lines and interchange. (See sketch.)

At the hearing on public use and necessity, respondents objected to condemnation of the 50 by 1,350 foot strip, claiming that it would be an unconstitutional condemnation for a private purpose and that the change in plans had demonstrated that the strip was not needed for the interchange development. The trial court agreed with this contention and denied condemnation, finding that the sole purpose for taking the strip was for a private interest, i.e., to act as a screen for the Rushmore residents.

The state contends that condemnation of the disputed strip was proper under RCW 47.12.250, 2 which statute al-

*863

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

Related

Yakima County v. David M. Church
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2024
Cowlitz County v. Martin
165 P.3d 51 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)
City of Blaine v. Feldstein
117 P.3d 1169 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2005)
In Re Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
625 P.2d 723 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
City of Seattle v. Loutsis Investment Co.
554 P.2d 379 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1976)
State v. Brannan
530 P.2d 322 (Washington Supreme Court, 1975)
State v. Burch
501 P.2d 1239 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1973)
King County v. Farr
501 P.2d 612 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 P.2d 697, 5 Wash. App. 861, 1971 Wash. App. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bank-of-california-washctapp-1971.