Birnel v. Town of Fircrest
Birnel v. Town of Fircrest
335 P.2d 819; 53 Wash. 2d 830; 1959 Wash. LEXIS 351
(Pacific Reporter, Second Series)
Birnel v. Town of Fircrest
Dissenting Opinion
(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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.