Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.22
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.22.288 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Promptly after adoption, the text of each ordinance or a summary of the content of each ordinance shall be published at least once in the official newspaper of the city. For purposes of this section, a summary shall mean a brief description which succinctly describes the main points of the ordinance. Publication of the title of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness shall constitute publication of a summary of that ordinance. When the city publishes a summary, the publication shall include a statement that the full text of the ordinance will be mailed upon request.
An inadvertent mistake or omission in publishing the text or a summary of the content of an ordinance shall not render the ordinance invalid.
In addition to the requirement that a city publish the text or a summary of the content of each adopted ordinance, every city shall establish a procedure for notifying the public of upcoming hearings and the preliminary agenda for the forthcoming council meeting. Such procedure may include, but not be limited to, written notification to the city's official newspaper, publication of a notice in the official newspaper, posting of upcoming council meeting agendas, or such other processes as the city determines will satisfy the intent of this requirement.
[ 1994 c 273 s 7; 1988 c 168 s 1; 1985 c 469 s 100.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1991–2007 · leading case: Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 18× “080(2) (directing regional transportation entities to use the same methodology as first class cities for such procedures); RCW 35.22.288 (setting forth procedures).”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., LLC, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 14× “Several months later, NAFTZI moved for dismissal, alleging for the first time that PUD failed to provide statutory notice under RCW 35.22.288, RCW 35.23.221, RCW 35-.27.”
Port of Edmonds v. Nw. Fur Breeders Coop., Inc., 816 P.2d 1268 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 19× “010, which authorizes eminent domain by port districts, declares that such actions shall be exercised in the same manner as cities of the first class, that cities of the first class are required by RCW 35.22.288 to publish meaningful notices of any upcoming meetings which…”
Htk Mgmt. v. Seattle Monorail Auth., 121 P.3d 1166 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 5× “It reasoned that because the condemnation was established by ordinance, the port was also required to comply with RCW 35.22.288, governing the adoption of ordinances by first-class cities.”
HTK Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 155 Wash. 2d 612 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “It reasoned that because the condemnation was established by ordinance, the port was also required to comply with RCW 35.22.288, governing the adoption of ordinances by first-class cities.”
Pud v. Naftzi, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 15× “Several months later, NAFTZI moved for dismissal alleging for the first time that PUD failed to provide statutory notice under RCW 35.22.288, RCW 35.23.221, RCW 35.27.300, and RCW 35.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash. App. 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “This is so even if President Higgins’s announcement on January 8 may have violated Council procedural rules and possibly RCW 35.22.288 (requiring a city to give public notice of its preliminary agenda for upcoming meetings).”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 39 P.3d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “This is so even if President Higgins's announcement on January 8 may have violated Council procedural rules and, possibly RCW 35.22.288 (requiring a city to give public notice of its preliminary agenda for upcoming meetings).”
Silver Firs Town Homes, Inc. v. Silver Lake Water Dist., 12 P.3d 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “at 165 -66 (citing RCW 35.22.288). The court concluded that when the port district makes “a legislative decision to initiate an eminent domain proceedings, RCW 53.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 19× “080(2) (directing regional transportation entities to use the same methodology as first class cities for such procedures); RCW 35.22.288 (setting forth procedures).”
Bale v. City of Auburn, 941 P.2d 671 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “1 However, the City did not publish *207 either the text or a summary of the ordinance as required by RCW 35.22.288. The City collected assessments without objection from the business owners in the BIA from 1988 to 1994.”
Silver Firs Town Homes v. Silver Lake Water, 12 P.3d 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “2d 1268 (citing RCW 35.22.288). The court concluded that when the port district makes "a legislative decision to initiate eminent domain proceedings, RCW 53.”
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.