ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)

Citation: ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Parent Document: ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1990-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2610918/atherton-condo-apartment-owners... ↗

Full Text

804 chars

[16] Although Owners limited their oral argument before this court to the failure to enforce exception, Owners argue in their briefs that the legislative intent exception and the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine are also applicable. In their petition for review, however, Owners raised only the failure to enforce exception. Accordingly, pursuant to RAP 13.7(b), we consider only the failure to enforce exception. See Clam Shacks of Am., Inc. v. Skagit Cy., 109 Wn.2d 91, 98, 743 P.2d 265 (1987); Garth Parberry Equip. Repairs, Inc. v. James, 101 Wn.2d 220, 225 n. 2, 676 P.2d 470 (1984); Caruso v. Local Union 690 of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, 100 Wn.2d 343, 352, 670 P.2d 240 (1983); State v. Murdock, 91 Wn.2d 336, 339, 588 P.2d 1143 (1979).

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text