* The Glenrose Association v Spokane County, et al

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
THE GLENROSE ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,
v.
SPOKANE COUNTY and SPOKANE
YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 38376-8-III
PUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, J. —A superior court’s subject matter jurisdiction to decide particular
types of cases is grounded in the Washington State Constitution. Under article IV, section
6 of the state constitution, superior courts have broad jurisdiction over most original court
actions. They also have appellate jurisdiction over cases from inferior courts1 and
jurisdiction over various types of writs. With the exception of appeals from inferior courts
and writs of habeas corpus filed by persons in custody, a superior court’s subject matter
jurisdiction extends throughout Washington.
The current case involves an action under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA),
chapter 36.70C RCW. There is no dispute that superior courts enjoy subject matter
1 “Inferior courts” is the term used in our constitution, and therefore will be used
in this opinion.
FILED
JUNE 7, 2022
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38376-8-III
Glenrose Ass’n v. Spokane County
2
jurisdiction over LUPA petitions. The issue before us is whether the type of jurisdiction
exercised by the superior court is subject to constitutional restrictions on the county of
origin.
Our case law makes clear that a superior court’s subject matter jurisdiction over
administrative and agency matters, such as LUPA petitions, stems from the constitutional
authority over writs of certiorari. This authority is not subject to any geographic
restriction. Thus, superior courts throughout the state share subject matter jurisdiction
over LUPA petitions. The Lincoln County Superior Court erred when it found that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review a LUPA petition arising out of a hearing
examiner’s decision in Spokane County. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and
remand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
This case primarily turns on a question of law. Our recitation of the facts and
procedural background is therefore brief.
The Spokane Youth Sports Association (SYSA) proposed a sports complex in
Spokane’s Glenrose neighborhood. The local neighborhood association, The Glenrose
Association (Glenrose) opposed the proposal and requested a zoning code review. The
Spokane County Building and Planning Department found the sports complex was an
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38376-8-III
Glenrose Ass’n v. Spokane County
3
allowed use. This determination was affirmed on appeal to the Spokane County hearing
examiner.
Glenrose subsequently filed a land use petition in Lincoln County Superior Court
challenging the Spokane hearing examiner’s decision. SYSA moved for dismissal,
arguing Lincoln County did not have jurisdiction over a Spokane County land use dispute.
The Lincoln County Superior Court agreed and dismissed the petition.
Glenrose has filed a timely appeal and a panel of this court considered the matter
without oral argument.
ANALYSIS
We are tasked with deciding whether a superior court’s LUPA jurisdiction is
confined to land use decisions arising from the county where the court is located.
Jurisdictional questions require a constitutional analysis and are reviewed de novo.
Crosby v. Spokane County, 137 Wn.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999).
The word “jurisdiction” refers to a court’s power to “hear and determine a case.”
Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117 Segregated Fund, 197 Wn.2d 116, 140, 480
P.3d 1119 (2021). This basic definition is widely cited, but its importance is often
misunderstood. Older cases from our courts identified three forms of jurisdiction:
(1) subject matter, (2) personal, and (3) the power or authority to render a particular
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38376-8-III
Glenrose Ass’n v. Spokane County
4
judgment. See State v. Werner, 129 Wn.2d 485, 493, 918 P.2d 916 (1996), abrogated by
State v. Posey, 174 Wn.2d 131, 138-40, 272 P.3d 840 (2012). The Washington Supreme
Court has since clarified there are really only two forms of jurisdiction: (1) subject matter
and (2) personal. Freedom Foundation, 197 Wn.2d at 140-41.
Both subject matter and personal jurisdiction are defined by constitutional
restrictions. The legislature, through statute, can guide a court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
But the legislature has no power to restrict the constitutional reaches of jurisdiction.
James v. Kitsap County, 154 Wn.2d 574, 587-88, 115 P.3d 286 (2005).
The subject matter jurisdiction of superior courts in Washington is set by article
IV, section 6 of our constitution. This provision confers superior courts with broad
jurisdiction over original actions, appellate jurisdiction over cases arising from inferior
courts and justices of the peace, and jurisdiction over various writs.
The law is clear that superior courts enjoy constitutional authority over
administrative and agency decisions, such as LUPA actions. See Dep’t of Highways v.
King County Ch., Wash. Envtl. Council, 82 Wn.2d 280, 284-85, 510 P.2d 216 (1973). The
parties debate whether this authority is an exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction.
Our case law has been less than clear in this regard. Numerous cases assert superior
courts have appellate jurisdiction over administrative and agency decisions. Knight v. City
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38376-8-III
Glenrose Ass’n v. Spokane County
5
of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 337, 267 P.3d 973 (2011) (superior court hearing LUPA petition
exercises its “appellate jurisdiction”); Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wn.2d 275, 294, 197 P.3d 1153 (2008)
(review of administrative decision “invokes the superior court’s appellate, not original,
jurisdiction”); Conom v. Snohomish County, 155 Wn.2d 154, 157-58, 118 P.3d 344
(2005) (superior court deciding LUPA petition exercises its “appellate jurisdiction”);
Dougherty v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 150 Wn.2d 310, 316-17, 76 P.3d 1183 (2003)
(superior court review of industrial insurance decision invokes court’s “appellate
jurisdiction”). But more recent jurisprudence states both types of jurisdiction are
applicable. James, 154 Wn.2d at 588-89 (LUPA invokes “original appellate jurisdiction
of the superior court”); ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. State ex rel. Wash. State Gambling Comm’n,
173 Wn.2d 608, 619-20, 268 P.3d 929 (2012) (superior court review of agency decision
involves “original jurisdiction” and the court acting in its “appellate capacity”).
We find it unnecessary to decide whether a superior court’s authority to review an
administrative or agency decision is original, appellate, or both because the constitutional
source for the court’s authority is the writs clause in article IV, section 6, of the
Washington Constitution. Prior to the enactment of statutes such as LUPA, that facilitate
judicial review of administrative decisions, a superior court’s authority over land use
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38376-8-III
Glenrose Ass’n v. Spokane County
6
decisions was accomplished through a writ of certiorari. Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146
Wn.2d 904, 916-17, 52 P.3d 1 (2002); Saldin Sec. Inc. v. Snohomish County, 134 Wn.2d
288, 292, 949 P.2d 370 (1998). Given the legislature is only empowered to guide a
superior court’s exercise of jurisdiction, we conclude LUPA jurisdiction remains rooted
in the writs clause.
A superior court’s constitutional power to issue writs of certiorari is not limited by
the court’s county of location. Although the writs clause limits jurisdiction over writs of
habeas corpus to petitions filed by or on behalf of a person in custody in the court’s
respective county, there is no county restriction on a superior court’s constitutional
authority to issue a writ of certiorari. Given the lack of any constitutional restrictions,
superior courts throughout the state share equal subject matter jurisdiction. See ZDI
Gaming Inc., 173 Wn.2d at 619.
Despite the lack of geographic restrictions on issuing writs, SYSA insists that
administrative or agency matters, such as LUPA cases, are constrained geographically by
the inferior courts clause of the Washington Constitution. This clause provides as follows:
“The superior court . . . shall have such appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justices’
and other inferior courts in their respective counties as may be prescribed by law.” WASH .
CONST. art. IV, § 6.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38376-8-111
Glenrose Ass
'n
v.
Spokane County
SYSA's
reliance on the inferior courts clause fails because this provision applies
only to review
of
decisions from actual courts. In other words, it applies to decisions from
a ''judicial court established by the constitution or in pursuance thereof." 	Wash. Envtl.
Council, 82 Wn.2d at 284. An administrative body or hearing examiner does not equate to
a judicial court. See id.; ABC Holdings, Inc.
v.
Kittitas County, 187 Wn. App.
275,282,
348 P.3d 1222 (2015); Lakeside Indus.
v.
Thurston County, 119 Wn. App. 886, 903, 83
P.3d 433 (2004). The inferior courts clause is therefore inapplicable to the superior
court's authority to decide a LUPA petition and the geographical restrictions pertaining to
the inferior courts clause has no bearing on a court's authority under LUPA.
CONCLUSION
The Lincoln County Superior Court held subject matter jurisdiction over
G lenrose' s L UPA petition. The court's order
of
dismissal is therefore reversed. This
matter is remanded to Lincoln County for further proceedings. On remand, the superior
court may address any applicable arguments regarding a request for change
of
venue.
Pennell, J.
WE CONCUR:
~
•.:r:
Fearing,i.
7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.