Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.87
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.87.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Owners of the majority of the frontage on any county road or portion thereof may petition the county legislative authority to vacate and abandon the same or any portion thereof. The petition must show the land owned by each petitioner and set forth that such county road is useless as part of the county road system and that the public will be benefited by its vacation and abandonment. The legislative authority may (1) require the petitioners to make an appropriate cash deposit or furnish an appropriate bond against which all costs and expenses incurred in the examination, report, and proceedings pertaining to the petition shall be charged; or (2) by ordinance or resolution require the petitioners to pay a fee adequate to cover such costs and expenses.
[ 1991 c 363 s 89; 1985 c 369 s 4; 1963 c 4 s 36.87.020. Prior: 1937 c 187 s 49, part; RRS s 6450-49, part.]

Notes:

Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002). “2d 1355 (1982), the appellant argued that the freeholder requirement of RCW 36.87.020 was violated because only five married couples had signed a road vacation petition.”
Bay Indus., Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 653 P.2d 1355 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 36.87.020 requires a road vacation petition to be signed by 10 freeholders residing in the vicinity of the road.”
State v. Coria, 48 P.3d 980 (Wash. 2002). “2d 1355 (1982), the appellant argued that the freeholder requirement of RCW 36.87.020 was violated because only five married couples had signed a road vacation petition.”
Coalition of Chiliwist Residents & Friends v. Okanogan Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 36.87.020. Such a process does not involve the application of existing law to past or present facts for the purpose of declaring or enforcing liability.”
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.