Water District No. 111 v. Moore
This text of 397 P.2d 845 (Water District No. 111 v. Moore) 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.
Opinion
As in Minish v. Hanson (1964), 64 Wn. (2d) 113, 390 P. (2d) 704, the issue sought to be raised is whether the dissolution procedures for water districts, as authorized by RCW 57.04.100, impair the obligations of the contracts made by the water district being dissolved. There has been a petition for the dissolution of the plaintiff-appellant water district filed, but no vote on that issue. The vote may be against dissolution, in which event there would be nothing before the court.
The action is premature. The judgment of the superior court appealed from must be set aside, and an order of dismissal entered. As in Minish, we do not reach the question of whether the dissolution procedures would constitute an impairment of contract rights and we express no opinion thereon.
While appellants prevail, in that the judgment appealed from is set aside, they are responsible for the bringing of the premature action and will not be permitted to recover costs on this appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
397 P.2d 845, 65 Wash. 2d 392, 1964 Wash. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/water-district-no-111-v-moore-wash-1964.