Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/9666774/Pacific-NW-Shooting-Park-v-City-of-Sequim-Supreme-Court-decision
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:43:59+00:00

Document:
This is a significant Washington State Supreme Court decision that Mr. Christie obtained in his client's favor upholding the dismissal of this case.
use of city convention center for a gun show. The nonmoving party.
association appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
conditions. issues of material fact.
Sanders, J., filed dissenting opinion.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
228k185(2) k. Presumptions and used improper means, and (5) resultant damage.
that the nonmoving party failed to present sufficient judgment motion, insufficient pleadings cannot.
379 Torts insufficient. CR 8(a).
379III(B) Business or Contractual Relations 361k190 k. Existence of Ambiguity.
to show a relationship between parties contemplating does not resort to statutory construction principles.
361k180 Intention of Legislature 361k190 k. Existence of Ambiguity.
determine and give effect to the legislature's intent firearms in the convention center under the statute.
and purpose in creating the statute. West's RCWA 9.41.300.
firearms,” and thus did not qualify as an exception to 268k226 k. Capacity to Contract in General.
regulations of application to the general public. the system efficient and beneficial to the public.
& Klinge LLP, Bellevue, WA, for Petitioners.
592(1) Seattle, WA, for Respondents.
Weapons 406 3 the city's actions violated RCW 9.41.290 and .300.
did not violate either RCW 9.41.290 or .300.
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
Conditions of Approval” was attached to the permit public was significantly lower than expected. Id.
*347 ¶ 4 Chief Nelson sent two memoranda to the relationship between himself and the city. SCP at 63.
and a second dated April 11, 2002, that superseded consolidation of their cases which was granted.
the record does *349 not reflect that any action was 1987254 at *2, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 2023, at *6.
passed no ordinances contrary to RCW 9.41.290,” (2) 9.41.290 and .300. We granted review. Pac. Nw.
were a part of the contract between the City and 1019, 120 P.3d 953 (2005).
¶ 10 PNSPA appealed to the Court of Appeals, public?
the business expectancies between PNSPA, the ¶ 14 B. Did the city violate RCW 9.41.290 or .300?
material fact.” Id. at 22, 851 P.2d 689. Once the grant leave when justice so requires. Bank of Am. v.
moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to Hubert, 153 Wash.2d 102, 122, 101 P.3d 409 (2004).
argument as if that were what it had argued all along.
interference inducing or causing a breach or statement of the claim and the relief sought. CR 8(a).
defendants interfered for an improper purpose or used notice of the claim asserted are insufficient. Dewey v.
must determine whether PNSPA's claim of tortious relationship it had with vendors or the general public.
interfere with its own contract. However, in rebuttal Wash.2d 77, 84-85, 491 P.2d 1050 (1971).
contractual relationship with the city. legislature's intent and purpose in creating the statute.
attend the gun show. other possible interpretations exist. Id.
9.41.290, the State has fully occupied the field of town, county, or municipality.
general public. Regarding RCW 9.41.300, the city involving the exhibition of firearms.
regulate sales of firearms flowed from its authority to explain how a sale qualifies as an exhibition.
municipalities to “regulate gun shows.” preempted the city's permit conditions.
depend on the type of activity PNSPA municipal employer. Cherry v. Mun. of Metro.
intended to pursue on the city's property. If Seattle, 116 Wash.2d 794, 802, 808 P.2d 746 (1991).
PNSPA's complaint clearly states that gun collectors, only to laws or regulations of general application. Id.
exhibitor derives or expects to derive a profit.” strained interpretation. Id. at 802, 808 P.2d 746.
inference sales, of firearms and the gun show did not clause does not apply.
preemption clause. affirm the Court of Appeals.
capacity when it “acts as the proprietor of a business MADSEN, BRIDGE and OWENS, JJ.
enterprise for the private advantage of the SANDERS, J. (dissenting).
P.2d 821 (1936). By issuing a temporary use permit, required.
9.41.290. Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it to regulate PNSPA's gun show.
laws or regulations of application to the general v. Balow, 59 Wash.2d 856, 858, 370 P.2d 982 (1962).
4. That defendants interfered for an improper purpose expectancy.
¶ 39 The majority incorrectly asserts a party pleading judgment is inappropriate.
for this proposition. And none exists.
would be of pecuniary value,” including a party's make it mean the opposite of what it says.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B cmt. c meaning of words.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W.
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-glass and What firearms from an unlicensed individual.” Id.
Co.1993). When a statute is unambiguous, and or purchase of guns to licensed dealers.
¶ 44 I dissent. a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec.
Washington constitutional right “of the individual her personal collection of firearms.
reviewed such law. See infra note 3. ¶ 49 I concur with the dissent.
FN2.Washington Constitution article I, CHAMBERS, J., concurs.
section 24 protects this “right of the Wash.,2006.
Wash.2d 664, 706, 683 P.2d 571 (1984).
not licensed dealers shall not be allowed.” SCP at 18.
When Is an Executive Personally Liable for Claims Against a Business?
Torres vs. Rural Bank of San Juan Ins.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 766
 v.