Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,748 chars

the statute continues, "No other municipality in which the airport ... is located shall

have any police jurisdiction of the same or any authority to charge or exact any

license fees or occupation taxes for the operations." !d. The Port of Seattle contends

that the "exclusive jurisdiction" language means the Port of Seattle has the sole and

undivided authority to regulate any matter that occurs at the Seattle-Tacoma

International Airport. It contends, "The City does not have the statutory authority to

regulate any matters occurring at [the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport]." Br. of

Resp't Port of Seattle at 9 (emphasis added). However, reading the statute's two

sentences together, it is unclear what the legislature intended to grant the Port of

Seattle "exclusive jurisdiction and control" over. The statute does not say "any

matters." See RCW 14.08.330. If the legislature meant for the Port of Seattle to have

"exclusive jurisdiction and control" over every conceivable matter that occurred at the

airport, then the statute's subsequent sentence, detailing that "[n]o other municipality

in which the airport ... is located shall have any police jurisdiction of the same or any

authority to charge or exact any license fees or occupation taxes for the operations,"

would be superfluous. '" [N]o part of a statute should be deemed inoperative or

superfluous unless it is the result of obvious mistake or error."' In re Det. of Strand,

167 Wn.2d 180, 189, 217 P.3d 1159 (2009) (quoting Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp., 117

12
             
Filo Foods, LLC v. City ofSeaTac
89723-9

Wn.2d 1, 13, 810 P.2d 917, 817 P.2d 1359 (1991)). By saying that municipalities in