Abstract
The Washington Supreme Court erred in Chemical Bank by misapplying the distinctions between primary and secondary ultra vires that it had articulated in Edwards v. City of Renton and reaffirmed in Noel. In the interest of consistent, fair, and logical results, the court will ultimately need to retreat from the very technical interpretation of primary ultra vires that it applied in Chemical Bank. Otherwise, the court may find itself splitting hairs over the exact scope of enabling legislation when the statutes and subsequent legislative acts manifest approval of the actions taken.
Recommended Citation
Grant Degginger, Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply System: An Aberration in Washington's Application of the Ultra Vires Doctrine, 8 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 59 (1984).
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons
