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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.13.150 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Following the hearing, the council or commission shall determine by ordinance whether annexation shall be made. Subject to RCW 35.02.170, they may annex all or any portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any property not described in the petition. Upon passage of the ordinance a certified copy shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county in which the annexed property is located.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 s 9; 1965 c 7 s 35.13.150. Prior: 1957 c 239 s 5; prior: 1945 c 128 s 4, part; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 8908-13, part.]

Notes:

Legislative finding, intent—1975 1st ex.s. c 220: See note following RCW 35.02.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1970–2004 · 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). “RCW 35.13.150; RCW 35A.14.140. Thus, the legislative power to annex that has been constitutionally delegated to the city is in fact exercised by the city, not by the landowners.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 42 P.3d 394 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “" RCW 35.13.150 (emphasis added). Code cities such as Moses Lake are governed by a different statute, chapter *401 35A.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash. 2d 791 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 35.13.150; RCW 35A.14.140. Thus, the legislative power to annex that has been constitutionally delegated to the city is in fact exercised by the city, not by the landowners.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wash. 2d 702 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “” RCW 35.13.150 (emphasis added). *716 Code cities such as Moses Lake are governed by a different statute, chapter 35A.”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “” RCW 35.13.150. Here, the Association’s lawsuit preceded the Boundary Review Board’s consideration of the annexation proposal.”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 35.13.150. This method of annexation has been held not to violate article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution.”
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Under RCW 35.13.150, the City Council may annex "all or any portion of the proposed area .”
City of Tukwila v. King Cnty., 469 P.2d 878 (Wash. 1970). “RCW 35.13.150 provides in part: “Upon passage of the' ordinance a certified copy shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county in ■ which the annexed property is located.”
People v. The City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Under RCW 35.13.150, the City Council may annex "all or any portion of the proposed area .”
Snohomish Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. Brb, 87 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “When this petition is filed with the city, the city's governing body must set a public hearing on the annexation.”
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.