Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35A · Chapter 35A.14
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35A.14.130 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever such a petition for annexation is filed with the legislative body of a code city, which petition meets the requirements herein specified and is sufficient according to the rules set forth in RCW 35A.01.040, the legislative body may entertain the same, fix a date for a public hearing thereon and cause notice of the hearing to be published in one or more issues of a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall also be posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation, and shall specify the time and place of hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval of the annexation.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 119 s 35A.14.130.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1984–2006 · leading case: Grant Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Moses Lake, 83 P.3d 419 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grant Cty. Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Moses Lake, 83 P.3d 419 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “If, following the hearing, the legislative body decides to annex, it may annex all or any portion of the proposed area.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash. 2d 791 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 42 P.3d 394 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval.”
Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wash. 2d 702 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “140; RCW 35A.14.130. The legislative body must hold a public hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or disapproval.”
City of Richland v. Franklin Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 676 P.2d 425 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 35A.14.130. Once the 75 percent petition is filed, RCW 35A.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). “Under RCW 35A.14.130, the direct petition method requires further public hearing as the annexing city.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. BRB, 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). “Under RCW 35A.14.130, the direct petition method requires further public hearing as the annexing city.”
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.