State v. Cook
Washington Supreme Court
433 P.2d 677 (1967)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Cook (plaintiff) purchased a home and moved it to a lot he owned for the purpose of renting the home to another. While preparing the home for rental, Cook discovered that certain plumbing work would be necessary to rent the home. Cook, who was not a certified plumber, purchased the materials with the intent to perform the plumbing work himself. Cook applied for a permit to perform the plumbing work but was denied. Snohomish County (the county), where the home was located, had adopted the Uniform Plumbing Code, which required a permit to commence any plumbing work in any building. The Uniform Plumbing Code provided that a permit would be provided only to certified plumbers unless the following six requirements were met: (1) the plumbing work was for a single-family home; (2) the home would be used exclusively for living purposes; (3) the person doing the work was the owner of the home; (4) the home was occupied or would be occupied by the owner; (5) the owner was to personally purchase the material; and (6) the owner was to personally perform all of the work. Cook petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus to require the county to issue a plumbing permit for the work he intended to do in his rental home. The trial court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus, and Cook appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Finley, C.J.)
Dissent (Weaver, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.