Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.40.130 (2026)

Excess of expenditures, liability

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Expenditures made, liabilities incurred, or warrants issued in excess of any of the detailed budget appropriations or as revised by transfer as in RCW 36.40.100 or 36.40.120 provided shall not be a liability of the county, but the official making or incurring such expenditure or issuing such warrant shall be liable therefor personally and upon his or her official bond. The county auditor shall issue no warrant and the county commissioners shall approve no claim for any expenditure in excess of the detailed budget appropriations or as revised under the provisions of RCW 36.40.100 through 36.40.130, except upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or for emergencies as hereinafter provided.

[ 2009 c 337 s 10; 1963 c 4 s 36.40.130. Prior: 1945 c 201 s 1, part; 1943 c 66 s 1, part; 1927 c 301 s 1, part; 1923 c 164 s 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 3997-5, part.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1953–2000 · leading case: In re the Recall of Sandhaus, 134 Wash. 2d 662 (Wash. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Recall of Sandhaus, 134 Wash. 2d 662 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “” RCW 36.40.130. The second charge appears to be factually sufficient.”

In Re Recall of Sandhaus, 953 P.2d 82 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “" RCW 36.40.130. The second charge appears to be factually sufficient.”

Chelan Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Cnty. of Chelan, 745 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1987). “In November 1984, a bench trial was held on the County's affirmative defenses, including accord and satisfaction, a statutory bar under RCW 36.40.130, and laches. In March 1985, the trial court entered a judgment in plaintiffs' favor.”

In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000). “at 671 (“wilfulness [in violating RCW 36.40.130] can probably be found in evidence showing that [the prosecutor] knew he was overspending and did so even after the Board and the auditor warned him against doing so.”

In Re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek, 10 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2000). “") In the Riccobono trial Pearsall-Stipek was administered an oath at page one of the trial transcript. Her untruthful statements appear at page two.”

Kerr v. King Cnty., 259 P.2d 398 (Wash. 1953). “” RCW 36.40.130 provides: “Expenditures made, liabilities incurred, or warrants issued in excess of any of the detailed budget appropriations or as revised by transfer as herein provided shall not be a liability of the county, but the official making or incurring such…”

State Ex Rel. Washington Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 351 P.2d 493 (Wash. 1960). “100 to RCW 36.40.130, and, further, that an obligation is incurred by the county road fund which is beyond the road fund limit set in RCW 36.”

Chelan Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Cnty. of Chelan, 655 P.2d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 7× “The sole issue is whether RCW 36.40.130 imposes personal liability on the sheriff for back overtime pay which may be due to the deputies in his *414 employ.”

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.