Little Mountain Estates Tenants Ass'n v. Little Mountain Estates MHC, LLC, 146 Wash. App. 546 (2008)

Citation: Little Mountain Estates Tenants Ass'n v. Little Mountain Estates MHC, LLC, 146 Wash. App. 546 (2008)
Parent Document: Little Mountain Estates Tenants Ass'n v. Little Mountain Estates MHC, LLC, 146 Wash. App. 546 (2008)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2008-07-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4945301/little-mountain-estates-tenants... ↗

Full Text

711 chars

¶17 A statute is ambiguous if it has two or more reasonable interpretations, but not “ ‘merely because different interpretations are conceivable.’ ” Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158 Wn.2d 194, 201, 142 P.3d 155 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Agrilink Foods, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 153 Wn.2d 392, 396, 103 P.3d 1226 (2005)). If a statute is ambiguous, we may resort to legislative history. *558Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 12. “Ultimately, in resolving a question of statutory construction, this court will adopt the interpretation which best advances the legislative purpose.” Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912, 928, 784 P.2d 1258 (1990) (citing In re R., 97 Wn.2d 182, 187, 641 P.2d 704 (1982)).

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text