Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 15.24.160 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
To maintain and complement the existing comprehensive regulatory scheme, the commission may employ, designate as agent, act in concert with, and enter into contracts with any person, council, or commission, including but not limited to the director, state agencies such as the Washington state fruit commission and its successors, statewide horticultural associations, organizations or associations engaged in tracking the movement and marketing of horticultural products, and organizations or associations of horticultural growers, for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the apple industry and particularly for the purpose of assisting in the sale and distribution of apples in domestic or foreign commerce, and expend its funds or such portion thereof as it may deem necessary or advisable for such purpose and for the purpose of paying its proportionate share of the cost of any program providing direct or indirect assistance to the sale and distribution of apples in domestic or foreign commerce. For such purposes it may employ and pay for legal counsel and contract and pay for other professional services. The liability of the state for the acts of the commission, or upon its contracts, shall be limited solely to the assets of the commission. In any civil or criminal action or proceeding for violation of any statute, including a rule adopted under that statute, or common law against monopolies or combinations in restraint of trade, including any action under chapter 19.86 RCW, proof that the act complained of was done in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, and in furtherance of the purposes and provisions of this chapter, is a complete defense to such an action or proceeding.
[ 2004 c 178 s 13; 2002 c 313 s 126; 1961 c 11 s 15.24.160. Prior: 1947 c 280 s 3; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 2909-3.]
Notes:
Effective dates—2002 c 313: See note following RCW 15.65.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2003–2003 · leading case: In Re Washington State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (E.D. Wash. 2003).
In Re Washington State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (E.D. Wash. 2003). “While the activities of the Commission are exempt from the antitrust laws, RCW 15.24.160 (2002), the Court finds that was an effort to add a Glickman factor with no real basis in fact.”
In Re Washington State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 257 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (E.D. Wash. 2003). “While the activities of the Commission are exempt from the antitrust laws, RCW 15.24.160 (2002), the Court finds this alone does not carry weight because the reasons why the Commission might need an antitrust exemption do not appear to exist here.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.