Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.43.180 (2026)

Restraint by protest

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The jurisdiction of the legislative authority of a city or town to proceed with any local improvement initiated by resolution shall be divested by a protest filed with the city or town council within thirty days from the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvement, signed by the owners of the property within the proposed local improvement district or utility local improvement district subject to sixty percent or more of the total cost of the improvement including federally-owned or other nonassessable property as shown and determined by the preliminary estimates and assessment roll of the proposed improvement district or, if all or part of the local improvement district or utility local improvement district lies outside of the city or town, such jurisdiction shall be divested by a protest filed in the same manner and signed by the owners of property which is within the proposed local improvement district or utility local improvement district but outside the boundaries of the city or town, and which is subject to sixty percent or more of that part of the total cost of the improvement allocable to property within the proposed local improvement district or utility local improvement district but outside the boundaries of the city or town, including federally-owned or other nonassessable property: PROVIDED, That such restraint by protest shall not apply to any of the following local improvements, if the legislative body finds and recites in the ordinance or resolution authorizing the improvement that such improvement is necessary for the protection of the public health and safety and such ordinance or resolution is passed by unanimous vote of all members present: (1) Sanitary sewers or watermains where the health officer of the city or town, or department of ecology, files with the legislative authority a report showing the necessity for such improvement; and (2) fire hydrants where the chief of the fire department files a report showing the necessity for such improvement.

[ 1983 c 303 s 3; 1967 c 52 s 8; 1965 c 58 s 2; 1965 c 7 s 35.43.180. Prior: 1963 c 56 s 2; 1957 c 144 s 12; prior: 1949 c 28 s 1, part; 1931 c 85 s 1, part; 1927 c 109 s 1, part; 1923 c 135 s 1, part; 1921 c 128 s 1, part; 1915 c 168 s 1, part; 1911 c 98 s 12, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 9363, part.]

Notes:

Construction—Severability—1967 c 52: See notes following RCW 35.43.042.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1966–2013 · leading case: Kasper v. City of Edmonds, 420 P.2d 346 (Wash. 1966).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kasper v. City of Edmonds, 420 P.2d 346 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 7× “The problem is whether “total cost of the improvement” means the total cost of a project, including the amount proposed to be contributed from municipal funds, or whether it simply refers to the assessed cost as borne by the property owners whose property is specially benefited.”

Cary v. Mason Cnty., 132 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “al 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…”

Esping v. Pesicka, 577 P.2d 152 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Five of the owners filed protests to the formation of the LID pursuant to RCW 35.43.180, which provides: The jurisdiction of the legislative authority of a city or town to proceed with any local improvement initiated by resolution shall be divested by a protest filed with the…”

Thymian v. Massart, 420 P.2d 351 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 3× “Thus, we are once again concerned with the meaning and effect to be *807 given to the words “total cost of the improvement” as they appear in RCW 35.43.180, the statute which provides for the restraint of local improvement projects by protest of property owners within the…”

Hulo v. City of Redmond, 544 P.2d 34 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “100 is inapplicable because in conflict with RCW 35.43.180, 2 which permits owners subject to 60 percent of *570 the assessable costs of the improvement to restrain a city from proceeding with a local improvement district which was initiated by council resolution.”

Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 418 P.2d 1008 (Wash. 1966). “150, there being insufficient protests under RCW 35.43.180 to divest the city of jurisdiction to go forward with the project, the city adopted ordinance 92174, establishing LID No.”

Berglund v. City of Tacoma, 423 P.2d 922 (Wash. 1967). “15 per cent of the property within the proposed LID filed their objections, and, this protest being insufficient under RCW 35.43.180 to prevent the LID, the city proceeded with its plans to construct the extended water system.”

Esping v. Pesicka, 598 P.2d 1363 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 8× “Petitioners are property owners challenging the formation of a local improvement district (LID) pursuant to RCW 35.43.180. Respondents are the City of Tukwila and a number of city officials.”

Esping v. Pesicka, 583 P.2d 671 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “2d 351 (1966), upon which appellants rely, hold that a municipality may not dilute LID protestors' right of protest by contributing "public funds," Kasper , at 802, to the "total cost of the improvement" as contemplated by RCW 35.43.180. After numerous and extensive hearings,…”

Forsgreen v. City of Spokane, 627 P.2d 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “but outside the boundaries of the city . . . and which is subject to sixty percent or more of that part of the total cost of the improvement allocable to property within the proposed local improvement district .”

First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. City of West Richland, 39 Wash. App. 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 35.43.180. Thus, although the statute makes no mention of restrictions on who may object at the hearing, only "owners" of the affected property can prevent a city from proceeding with the LID.”

Denis Fury v. City Of North Bend (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “al 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…”

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.