Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35A · Chapter 35A.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.12.140 (2026)

Adoption of codes by reference

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Ordinances may by reference adopt Washington state statutes and state, county, or city codes, regulations, or ordinances or any standard code of technical regulations, or portions thereof, including, for illustrative purposes but not limited to, fire codes and codes or ordinances relating to the construction of buildings, the installation of plumbing, the installation of electric wiring, health and sanitation, the slaughtering, processing, and selling of meats and meat products for human consumption, the production, pasteurizing, and sale of milk and milk products, or other subjects, together with amendments thereof or additions thereto, on the subject of the ordinance. Such Washington state statutes or codes or other codes or compilations so adopted need not be published in a newspaper as provided in RCW 35A.12.160, but the adopting ordinance shall be so published and a copy of any such adopted statute, ordinance, or code, or portion thereof, with amendments or additions, if any, in the form in which it was adopted, shall be filed in the office of the city clerk for use and examination by the public. While any such statute, code, or compilation is under consideration by the council prior to adoption, not less than one copy thereof shall be filed in the office of the city clerk for examination by the public.
[ 1995 c 71 s 1; 1982 c 226 s 2; 1967 ex.s. c 119 s 35A.12.140.]

Notes:

Effective date—1982 c 226: See note following RCW 35.21.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2012 · leading case: City of Bothell v. Gutschmidt, 898 P.2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Bothell v. Gutschmidt, 898 P.2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “RCW 35A.12.140. The following facts were established in district court: (1) A verbatim copy of the MTO was not published along with the Bothell ordinance.”
Hook v. Lincoln Cty. Noxious Weed Control, 269 P.3d 1056 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Otherwise, reported decisions most commonly address counties' adoption by reference of state criminal laws that a county (or a city, under similar provisions included at RCW 35A.12.140) wishes to enforce as local law.”
City of Wenatchee v. Owens, 185 P.3d 1218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “¶ 28 At the time the city adopted portions of the MTO in 1979 and 1980, former RCW 35A.12.140 (1967) [1] required the city clerk to authenticate, record, and file three copies of the state statute being adopted (there, the MTO) along with the adopting ordinance.”
Hook v. Lincoln Cnty. Noxious Weed Control Bd., 166 Wash. App. 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Otherwise, reported decisions most commonly address counties’ adoption by reference of state criminal laws that a county (or a city, under similar provisions included at RCW 35A.12.140) wishes to enforce as local law.”
Olympic View-Mukilteo Action Grp. v. City of Mukilteo, 649 P.2d 116 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 35A.12.140. Finally, copies of the Snohomish County Zoning Code were kept on file in the city clerk's office.”
City of Wenatchee v. Owens, 145 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “*207 ¶28 At the time the city adopted portions of the MTO in 1979 and 1980, former RCW 35A.12.140 (1967) 1 required the city clerk to authenticate, record, and file three copies of the state statute being adopted (there, the MTO) along with the adopting ordinance.”
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.