Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Anderson v. Island County

Supreme Court of Washington
501 P.2d 594 (1972)


Facts

On March 11, 1966, Island Sand and Gravel, Inc. (Island Sand and Gravel) purchased a 17-acre tract of land in the Holmes Harbor area of Island County (County) (defendant). On December 5, 1966, the Board of County Commissioners for Island County (Board) zoned the Holmes Harbor area as residential. Around this time, Island Sand and Gravel began building a cement batching plant on its property. On September 22, 1969, Island Sand and Gravel petitioned to have its land rezoned to commercial. The Island County Planning Commission denied the request. On appeal, the Board rezoned Island Sand and Gravel's land to commercial, leaving a ten foot wide green belt of land between its batching plant and its neighbors. The Andersons are residents of Holmes Harbor and neighboring property owners. They brought suit in the superior court to review the Board’s decision to rezone Island Sand and Gravel’s property. They specifically argued that: (1) the Board’s decision to rezone was arbitrary and capricious, and (2) the rezoning constituted spot zoning. The trial court reviewed the findings of the Board and noted that: (1) when the Board rezoned the Holmes Harbor area as residential, it had intended to allow pre-existing nonconforming uses to continue; (2) the poor soil quality of Island Sand and Gravel’s land made it unsuitable for residential development; (3) the services of Island Sand and Gravel were necessary to the island; (4) Island Sand and Gravel was one of the few areas of employment in the vicinity; and (5) the operation of a batching plant would be compatible with the surrounding area because of the green belt separating the plant from the neighboring residences. Based on these findings, the trial court found that the Board’s finding was not arbitrary and capricious, and therefore sustained the decision.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Finley, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.