Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35A · Chapter 35A.01

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.01.010

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The purpose and policy of this title is to confer upon two optional classes of cities created hereby the broadest powers of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this state. Any specific enumeration of municipal powers contained in this title or in any other general law shall not be construed in any way to limit the general description of power contained in this title, and any such specifically enumerated powers shall be construed as in addition and supplementary to the powers conferred in general terms by this title. All grants of municipal power to municipalities electing to be governed under the provisions of this title, whether the grant is in specific terms or in general terms, shall be liberally construed in favor of the municipality.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 119 s 35A.01.010.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: Burns v. City of Seattle
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burns v. City of Seattle (2007) wash “" RCW 35A.01.010. A city may enter into any contract so long as it does not conflict with the constitution, a statute, or a city's own charter or ordinances.”
Burns v. City of Seattle (2007) wash “” RCW 35A.01.010. A city may enter into any contract so long as it does not conflict with the constitution, a statute, or a city’s own charter or ordinances.”
City of Issaquah v. Teleprompter Corp. (1980) wash · cites it 2× “95 indicates a legislative concern over television reception which requires regional or statewide solutions. Since television reception is not merely a matter of local concern, it is argued, the city may not legislate in the area without express legislative delegation, which is…”
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac (2015) wash “¶19 Unlike cities, which are granted “the broadest powers of local self-government,” RCW 35A.01.010, a port district is a special purpose district, which “is limited in its powers to those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and also…”
City of Moses Lake v. United States (2006) waed “RCW35A.01.010 provides: The purpose and policy of this title is to confer upon two optional classes of cities created hereby the broadest powers of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this state.”
City of Bothell v. Gutschmidt (1995) washctapp “Requisites for adoption of city ordinances are contained in RCW 35A.12.130, which specifies that: Every ordinance which passes the council in order to become valid must be presented to the mayor; if he approves it, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it with his…”
United States v. Town of North Bonneville (1980) wash “" The Corps argues that the proposed land transactions violate the state constitution either because the municipality's expenditure would not be for a "public purpose" or because the purchase and resale by North Bonneville would constitute a "loan of credit" to a private party…”
State Ex Rel. Farmer v. Edmonds Municipal Court (1980) washctapp “See RCW 35A.01.010. The act provided for municipal courts in code cities, with the following limitation: The municipal court or municipal department of code cities governed by the provisions of chapters 3.”
Shaw Disposal, Inc. v. City of Auburn (1976) washctapp “RCW 35A.01.010. Further, another section of the act, RCW 35A.”
City of Wenatchee v. Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 (2014) washctapp “2d at 343-44 ); RCW 35A.01.010 (stating that “ [a]ll grants of municipal power to municipalities electing to be governed under the provisions of this title, whether the grant is in specific terms or in general terms, shall be liberally construed in favor of the municipality”).”
City of Bellevue v. Painter (1990) washctapp · cites it 3× “" RCW 35A.01.010. Further, this statute frees code cities from the limiting doctrine of ejusdem generis, which requires that general words following specific words in a statute must be construed to include things of the general kind or class as the specific words.”
Wong v. City of Long Beach (2004) washctapp · cites it 2× “” RCW 35A.01.010. Three statutes expressly grant eminent domain power to code cities.”
Show all 26 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.