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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.87.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any county road, or part thereof, which remains unopen for public use for a period of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening it, shall be thereby vacated, and the authority for building it barred by lapse of time: PROVIDED, That this section shall not apply to any highway, road, street, alley, or other public place dedicated as such in any plat, whether the land included in such plat is within or without the limits of an incorporated city or town, or to any land conveyed by deed to the state or to any county, city or town for highways, roads, streets, alleys, or other public places.
[ 1963 c 4 s 36.87.090. Prior: 1937 c 187 s 52; RRS s 6450-52.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Kiely v. Graves, 271 P.3d 226 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kiely v. Graves, 271 P.3d 226 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 3× “Although not addressed by the Erickson court, the Graveses argue Erickson can be distinguished based on the applicability of RCW 36.87.090 in that case. The statute states: Any county road, or part thereof, which remains unopen for public use for a period of five years after the…”
Bryan Kelley & Dorre Don Llc v. Beverly L. Tonda, 393 P.3d 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “9 The authority presumably relied on by Kelley that requires counties to “open” public roads within five years of their dedication is RCW 36.87.090. Prior to 1909, any county road that remained unopened for public use for a period of five years was vacated as a matter of law.”
Williams Place, LLC v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 348 P.3d 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “6 The proviso continues to exist in the current nonuser statute, codified at RCW 36.87.090. ¶45 The cases principally relied on by Williams Place all address the impact of statutory vacation for nonuse on property owners whose right (or predecessors’ right) to use dedicated…”
Real Progress, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 963 P.2d 890 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “These provisions are currently codified at RCW 36.87.090. On April 11, 1996, Real Frogress brought a declaratory action to quiet title to a portion of the street abutting its lot (lot 7, block 60) under the above described nonuser *838 statute.”
Wells v. Miller, 708 P.2d 1223 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “Consequently, we find the court properly held as a matter of law that the Millers adversely possessed the property for the required period.”
Miller v. King Cnty., 369 P.2d 304 (Wash. 1962). “RCW 36.87.090, which is the codification of Laws of 1937, chapter 187, § 52, p.”
Turner v. Davisson, 287 P.2d 726 (Wash. 1955). “RCW 36.87.090], the amendment did not divest property rights theretofore acquired by operation of the laws of 1890.”
Leonard v. Pierce Cnty., 65 P.3d 28 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “The Leonards sued to quiet title to the portion of Beach Lane that abuts their property, arguing that the nonuser statute, RCW 36.87.090, had vacated the road as a matter of law.”
Harold Messersmith & Lisa R. Bryant v. Town of Rockford, 529 P.3d 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “That same year, the state legislature passed the nonuser statute, now codified at RCW 36.87.090. It provided: 2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.”
Ellingsen v. Franklin Cnty., 778 P.2d 1072 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “" RCW 36.87.090 provides for the vacation of [a]ny county road, or part thereof, which remains unopen for public use for a period of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening it, shall be thereby vacated, and the authority for building it barred by…”
Nw. Indus., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 658 P.2d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “We, therefore, hold that annexation by a city of territory containing unopened roads, not yet vacated by operation of the nonuser statute, tolls the operation of that statute.”
City of Spokane Valley v. Spokane Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 825 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “Additionally, we hold that the dedication was not vacated under RCW 36.87.090. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in part and reverse in part.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.