Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.31
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.31.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of chapter 35.31 RCW shall be applied notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any charter of any city permitted by law to have a charter; however, charter provisions not inconsistent herewith shall continue to apply. All claims for damages against a charter city shall be filed in the manner set forth in chapter 4.96 RCW.
[ 1993 c 449 s 7; 1967 c 164 s 12; 1965 c 7 s 35.31.020. Prior: 1957 c 224 s 3; 1917 c 96 s 1; 1915 c 148 s 1; 1909 c 83 s 2; RRS s 9479.]

Notes:

Purpose—Severability—1993 c 449: See notes following RCW 4.96.010.
Purpose—Severability—1967 c 164: See notes following RCW 4.96.010.
Tortious conduct of political subdivisions and municipal corporations, liability for damages: Chapter 4.96 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1963–2009 · leading case: Wilson v. City of Seattle, 863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. City of Seattle, 863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 8× “020(2) *821 provides only for filing of claims for damages sounding in tort, former RCW 35.31.020 provides for the filing of "[a]ll claims for damages" against a charter city.”
Hall v. Niemer, 649 P.2d 98 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “In our broad holding we found unconstitutional the differential treatment accorded governmental and nongovernmental entities and tort victims of those entities.”
Daggs v. City of Seattle, 750 P.2d 626 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “005, typically require that an injured party file a claim with the political subdivision, describing the accident, the party's current address, and the amount of the claim.”
Hansen v. Wightman, 538 P.2d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “020) provided that claims for damages against a first-class city must be filed within 120 days from the date that an injury is sustained because such statute is unconstitutional ? The plaintiffs say it was error to instruct on the provisions of RCW 35.31.020, the municipal…”
Hunter v. North Mason Sch. Dist., 539 P.2d 845 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “100 (notice of claims against the state); RCW 35.31.020 (notice of claims against charter cities); RCW 36.”
Haslund v. City of Seattle, 547 P.2d 1221 (Wash. 1976). “VI Finally, appellant argues that respondents failed to file a claim for damages within 120 days from the date injury was sustained as required by RCW 35.31.020. However, we recently declared this and other nonclaim statutes unconstitutional as arbitrary burdens imposed on…”
Cook v. State, 521 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “020 (political subdivisions, including fire protection districts, flood control districts, cemetery districts and irrigation districts); RCW 35.31.020 and RCW 35.31.040 (charter and noncharter cities); RCW 36.”
Pirtle v. Spokane Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 81, 83 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “020 and former RCW 35.31.020 required a tort victim to file a notice of claim within 120 days of the date the claim arose.”
Pirtle v. Spokane Pub. Sch. Dist., 921 P.2d 1084 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “020 and former RCW 35.31.020 required a tort victim to file a notice of claim within 120 days of the date the claim arose.”
Gates v. Rosen, 631 P.2d 993 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “100 (notice of claims against the state); RCW 35.31.020 (notice of claims against charter cities); RCW 36.”
Thomas v. Przbylski, 516 P.2d 207 (Wash. 1973). “1 With reference to charter cities, RCW 35.31.020 provides in part that: “All claims for damages against a charter city shall be filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date that the damage occurred or the injury was sustained .”
Mattox v. Washington State Bd. Against Discrimination, 535 P.2d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “4 Because this is a case involving a public employer, appellant Mattox may be barred from obtaining a court remedy because of the *410 nonclaims statute, RCW 35.31.020, or Tacoma ordinance No. 1.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.