Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.43.100 (2026)

Ordinance—Finality—Limitation upon challenging jurisdiction or authority to proceed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The council may continue the hearing upon any petition or resolution provided for in this chapter and shall retain jurisdiction thereof until it is finally disposed of. The action and decision of the council as to all matters passed upon by it in relation to any petition or resolution shall be final and conclusive. No lawsuit whatsoever may be maintained challenging the jurisdiction or authority of the council to proceed with the improvement and creating the local improvement district or in any way challenging the validity thereof or any proceedings relating thereto unless that lawsuit is served and filed no later than thirty days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvement and creating the district or, when applicable, no later than thirty days after the expiration of the thirty-day protest period provided in RCW 35.43.180.
[ 1969 ex.s. c 258 s 4; 1965 c 7 s 35.43.100. Prior: 1911 c 98 s 19; RRS s 9371.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1972–2013 · leading case: Cary v. Mason Cnty., 132 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cary v. Mason Cnty., 132 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “4 And under RCW 35.43.100, any lawsuit of any kind challenging a municipal local improve *502 ment must be filed and served within 30 days.”
Hulo v. City of Redmond, 544 P.2d 34 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 11× “The trial judge ruled that the suit was barred as untimely by RCW 35.43.100 1 and granted the City’s motion for a summary judgment of dismissal.”
Patchell v. City of Puyallup, 682 P.2d 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “RCW 35.43.100. 2 RCW 35.50.010 in pertinent part provides as follows: "Assessment lien—Attachment—Priority.”
Denis Fury v. City Of North Bend (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “Under RCW 35.43.100, the passage of the ordinance creating an improvement district triggers a 30-day window in which the affected property owners may file suit to challenge the improvement district.”
Citizens for Underground Equality v. City of Seattle, 492 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “293 (1912) and RCW 35.43.100. If the statutes authorizing the creating of the district are constitutional, then the summary judgment of dismissal was proper.”
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.