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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.31.040 (2025)

Noncharter cities and towns—Manner of filing—Report

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All claims for damages against noncharter cities and towns shall be filed in the manner set forth in chapter 4.96 RCW.
No ordinance or resolution shall be passed allowing such claim or any part thereof, or appropriating any money or other property to pay or satisfy the same or any part thereof, until the claim has first been referred to the proper department or committee, nor until such department or committee has made its report to the council thereon pursuant to such reference.
[ 1993 c 449 s 8; 1989 c 74 s 1; 1967 c 164 s 13; 1965 c 7 s 35.31.040. Prior: 1957 c 224 s 4; 1915 c 148 s 2; 1909 c 167 s 1; RRS s 9481.]

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.
Actions against political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and quasi municipal corporations: Chapter 4.96 RCW.
Limitation of actions: Chapter 4.16 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1963–1974 · leading case: Cook v. State, 521 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cook v. State, 521 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “020 and RCW 35.31.040 (charter and noncharter cities); RCW 36.”
Thomas v. Przbylski, 516 P.2d 207 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 2× “Second, it would be impossible for the claimant who is not yet sued to describe the injury or the damages as required by RCW 35.31.040. Prior to suit, the defendant is not even certain that he will be sued; nor is he aware of the damages claimed against him.”
EL COBA CO. v. Franklin Cy. PUD, 514 P.2d 524 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 3× “No suit for damages shall be maintained against a district except on a claim filed with the commission complying in all respects with the terms and requirements for claims for damages filed against cities of the second class. (Italics ours.) Laws of 1955, ch.”
El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist., 514 P.2d 524 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 3× “340 and RCW 35.31.040, both of which required that claims for “damages” must be filed within 90 days of the date the damage occurred.”
Stuart v. East Valley Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 361, 379 P.2d 369 (Wash. 1963). “020, and section 2, chapter 148, Laws of 1915 and RCW 35.31.040; and amending section 1, chapter 121, Laws of 1893 and RCW 36.”
El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist., 503 P.2d 1082 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “This legislation further specified the time limit within which a claim may be filed and the person with whom a claim should be filed. The time for such filing was extended from *32 90 days, established for second-class cities, to a 1-year limitation for those “districts” which…”
Stuart v. E. Valley Consol. Sch. Dist., 379 P.2d 369 (Wash. 1963). “020, and section 2, chapter 148, Laws of 1915 and RCW 35.31.040; and amending section 1, chapter 121, Laws of 1893 and RCW 36.”
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.