Wash. Rev. Code » Title 39 · Chapter 39.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 39.34.040 (2026)

Methods of filing agreements—Status of interstate agreements—Real party in interest—Actions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Prior to its entry into force, an agreement made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the county auditor or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency's website or other electronically retrievable public source. In the event that an agreement entered into pursuant to this chapter is between or among one or more public agencies of this state and one or more public agencies of another state or of the United States the agreement shall have the status of an interstate compact, but in any case or controversy involving performance or interpretation thereof or liability thereunder, the public agencies party thereto shall be real parties in interest and the state may maintain an action to recoup or otherwise make itself whole for any damages or liability which it may incur by reason of being joined as a party therein. Such action shall be maintainable against any public agency or agencies whose default, failure of performance, or other conduct caused or contributed to the incurring of damage or liability by the state.
[ 2006 c 32 s 1; 1995 c 22 s 1; 1992 c 161 s 5; 1967 c 239 s 5.]

Notes:

Intent—1992 c 161: See note following RCW 70.44.450.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1999–2005 · leading case: Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The Exendines claimed the Interlocal Agreement was invalid because it was not ratified by the Sammamish City Council or filed with the county auditor as required by RCW 39.34.040. In a footnote in the memorandum the Exendines asked to supplement the record with new information…”
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The Exendines claimed the Interlocal Agreement was invalid because it was not ratified by the Sammamish City Council or filed with the county auditor as required by RCW 39.34.040. In a footnote in the memorandum the Exendines asked to supplement the record with new information…”
State v. Plaggemeier, 969 P.2d 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “030(2); RCW 39.34.040. Here, as the State concedes, there was neither ratification nor filing of the Agreement.”
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.