Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Pinecrest Homeowners Association v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates

Supreme Court of Washington
87 P.3d 1176 (2004)


Facts

Glen A. Cloninger & Associates (Cloninger) (defendant) owned property designated as medium density in the Lincoln Heights area of Spokane, Washington. Cloninger applied to the Spokane City Council (the council) for an amendment to the Spokane City Comprehensive Plan (the plan) to permit office parks of at least five acres in the neighborhood of Cloninger’s property to qualify for mixed-use development. Mixed-use development combined residential, office, and retail uses. The council accordingly amended the plan. The amendment was effective immediately and called for the enactment of a zoning ordinance permitting the rezoning of areas designated as high density in Cloninger’s zone to allow for mixed-use development complying with specific design standards. The amendment also required the hearing examiner to process a rezone that would fulfill the purposes of the amended plan. Cloninger then applied for rezoning, but the hearing examiner denied the request on the ground that the zoning ordinance called for in the plan had not yet been enacted. Cloninger appealed to the council, which reversed and remanded the hearing examiner’s decision. The Pinecrest Homeowners Association, the Rockwood Neighborhood Council, and various homeowners (plaintiffs) brought suit in the Spokane County Superior Court, challenging the council’s decision. The superior court affirmed the council’s decision. The plaintiffs appealed to Division Three of the Court of Appeals of Washington, which reversed the superior court’s decision. Cloninger appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.

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 (Owens, 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 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.