Hearst Corporation, Respondent v. Harley Hoppe, Appellant

Summary

The court affirmed the superior court's order requiring disclosure of most of the King County Assessor's real-property folios. It held that review was de novo, administrative inconvenience did not limit substantive disclosure duties, and the assessor failed to prove that the folios were wholly exempt under either the deliberative-process or privacy exemptions. The court also construed the real-property assessment statute in pari materia with the public disclosure act and found no significant conflict between them.