Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.14.005 (2026)

Annexations beyond urban growth areas prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

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

No code city located in a county in which urban growth areas have been designated under RCW 36.70A.110 may annex territory beyond an urban growth area.

[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 31.]

Notes:

Severability—Part, section headings not law—1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1993–2013 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 4× “005, RCW 35A.14.005). King County is one of the counties required by the GMA to designate urban growth areas and has developed a number of policies and a schedule for accomplishing the designation within the statutory timeframe.”

Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 298 P.3d 704 (Wash. 2013). “005; RCW 35A.14.005. ¶3 On November 16, 2007, Respondents John Karpinski, Clark County Natural Resources Council, and Futurewise (collectively the Challengers) filed a petition with the Growth Management Hearings Board (the Board) alleging that Clark County was not in compliance…”

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.