Monday Morning Mash-up: April 9, 2012

Whew. Just under the wire. It’s still technically morning here in Seattle, so the MMM can still be called the MMM and not the MAM. All you East Coasters or other time zoners will just have to deal with it if it is already afternoon where you are. Sorry.

Radiohead is in town tonight, playing at Key Arena. I will be in attendance. So it is only fitting that today’s song of the week is Thom Yorke looking totally twitchy and Thom Yorke-ish in Radiohead’s video for Lotus Flower:

 

And now on to last week’s Court of Appeals decisions:

American Honda Motor Company v. City of Seattle (Division 1, April 2, 2012) — on Seattle’s Business and Occupation tax and the Import-Export Clause of the Constitution.

Buecking v. Buecking (Division 1, April 2, 2012) — on whether statutory time limits for requests for dissolution are jurisdictional limits on the Superior Courts.

Karlberg v. Otten (Division 1, April 2, 2012) — on whether res judicata applies to cases determining property boundary points or to cases determining property boundary lines.

King County v. King County DDES (Division 1, April 2, 2012) — on determining the timing for establishment of nonconforming uses, along with a bad R. Kelly reference. (emphasis added, just because).

Hanks v. Grace (Division 1, April 2, 2012) — on the invalidation of releases for real estate brokers because such releases violate Washington public policy.

Advertisements

Daily Decisions: I Don’t See Nothing Wrong with a Little Crush n’ Grind

Jeffrey Spencer owns some farmland; Ron Shear operates a processing business on Spencer’s land. Shear’s business is to take “organic vegetation such as trees, stumps, brush, leaves, grass, and organic soils” and convert that stuff into “animal bedding and fuel.” Sounds like a fine business to me.

Well, Spencer’s neighbors operate a flower farm and they don’t like the business one bit. Apparently, when trucks bring in the organic vegetation, dust kicked up by the trucks lands on the neighbors’ precious flowers. So they called the King County Department of Developmental and Environmental Services (“DDES”) and snitched on Spencer and Shear. DDES issued a “notice of violation” to Shear and Spencer, which alleged that they were operating an unauthorized materials processing facility because the facility was “engaged in crushing, grinding, pulverizing or otherwise preparing earth materials.”

Shear and Spencer (“S&S”) appealed to a Hearing Examiner, who concluded that S&S had established a valid nonconforming use prior to the enactment of the relevant zoning ordinance. DDES then appealed that decision to the Superior Court, who reversed the Hearing Examiner and sided with DDES.

In King County v. King County DDES (Division 1, April 2, 2012), the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the Hearing Examiner’s findings. Continue reading