Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.13
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.13.140 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever a petition for annexation is filed with the city or town council, or commission in those cities having a commission form of government, which meets the requirements herein specified, of which fact satisfactory proof may be required by the council or commission, the council or commission may entertain the same, fix a date for a public hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to be published in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the city or town. The notice shall also be posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation, and shall specify the time and place of hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation. The expense of publication and posting of the notice shall be borne by the signers of the petition.
[ 1965 c 7 s 35.13.140. Prior: 1945 c 128 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 8908-11.] [SLC-RO-8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1962–2006 · leading case: Grant Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Moses Lake, 83 P.3d 419 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grant Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Moses Lake, 83 P.3d 419 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 35.13.140; RCW 35A.14.130. If, following the hearing, the legislative body decides to annex, it may annex all or any portion of the proposed area.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash. 2d 791 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 35.13.140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 42 P.3d 394 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 35.13.140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 35.13.140 (every ordinance must be published, at least once in a newspaper and posted in at least “three public places”); RCW 35.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wash. 2d 702 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 35.13.140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 117 P.3d 348 (Wash. 2005). “See RCW 35.13.140, .150. f 4 Those initiating annexation by the direct petition method must not only follow RCW 35.”
McAlmond v. City of Bremerton, 374 P.2d 181 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 3× “By the terms of RCW 35.13.140, 1 the jurisdiction of the respondent city on the annexation petition did not attach until it was formally entertained and July 13, 1961, fixed as the day on which it would be heard.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 35.13.140. Following the public hearing, the governing body adopts or rejects the annexation petition by ordinance.”
Meek v. Thurston Cnty., 374 P.2d 558 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 2× “He relies upon RCW 35.13.140 which provides as follows: “Whenever a petition for annexation is filed with the city or town council, or commission in those cities having a *465 commission form of government, which meets the requirements herein specified, of which fact…”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 35.13.140 (every ordinance must be published at least once in a newspaper and posted in at least "three public places"); RCW 35.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. Brb, 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The 75 percent petition must describe the property to be annexed more explicitly than the 10 percent petition, in accordance with six criteria set forth in RCW 35.”
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.