Court Opinion

ID: 9553695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:33:29.310559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:05.544225
License: Public Domain

Pearson, J.
(concurring in the result)—In a case analogous to the case at bench, a majority of this court recently held, "[t]he issuance of the permanent injunction by the trial court constitutes State action." Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212, 221, 721 P.2d 918 (1986). I am persuaded that should be the law of this case as well. Nevertheless, the majority today not only fails to apply the holding in Bering v. Share, supra, but altogether fails even to acknowledge its existence.
I would hold the granting of the permanent injunction constituted state action sufficient to invoke the protections afforded by Const, art. 1, § 5. Accordingly, the balancing of Alderwood Assocs. v. Washington Envtl. Coun., 96 Wn.2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981) criteria engaged in by the concurrence properly resolves the issue at hand. Thus, I concur in the result.
Dore, J., concurs with Pearson, J.