Birnel v. Town of Fircrest

Washington Supreme Court
Birnel v. Town of Fircrest, 335 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1959)
53 Wash. 2d 830; 1959 Wash. LEXIS 351
Hill

Birnel v. Town of Fircrest

Dissenting Opinion

Hill, Donworth, and Foster; JJ.

(dissenting)—We dissent for all of the reasons urged in the three dissents in Kaul v. Chehalis (1954), 45 Wn. (2d) 616, 277 P. (2d) 352.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff commenced this action to have ordinance No. 323 of the town of Fircrest declared .unconstitutional.and,to enjoin the town from adding to the city water supply

“. . . a source of fluoridation approved by the State Department of Health . . . under the rules and regulations of the State Board of Health, such addition to be administered in a manner approved by the State Department of Health.”

A demurrer was sustained to plaintiff’s amended complaint; she elected not to plead further and now appeals from a judgment dismissing her action with prejudice.

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of Kaul v. Chehalis, 45 Wn. (2d) 616, 277 P. (2d) 352 (1954).

It is so ordered.

Reference

Full Case Name
Patricia I. Birnel, Appellant, v. the Town of Fircrest, Respondent
Cited By
12 cases
Status
Published