History
  • No items yet
midpage
Birnel v. Town of Fircrest
335 P.2d 819
| Wash. | 1959
|
Check Treatment
53 Wash. 2d 830 (1959)
335 P.2d 819

PATRICIA I. BIRNEL, Appellant,
v.
THE TOWN OF FIRCREST, Respondent.[1]

No. 34857.

The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

February 26, 1959.

McMicken, Rupp & Schweppe, Mary Ellen Krug, and Fredric C. Tausend, for appellant.

Crippen & Flynn, for respondent.

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.

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.

NOTES

[1] Reported in 335 P. (2d) 819.

Case Details

Case Name: Birnel v. Town of Fircrest
Court Name: Washington Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 26, 1959
Citation: 335 P.2d 819
Docket Number: 34857
Court Abbreviation: Wash.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.