Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.060 (2025)

Action on irrigation district bonds

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No action against any irrigation district organized under the laws of this state, or its officers, to enforce any right or claim arising out of the issuance or ownership of any negotiable bond, payable on a day certain, of the irrigation district, where such district is under contract with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, to sell its lands and its right, title and interest in its distribution canals and pipelines and its water rights, thereby necessitating the discontinuance of the district operation upon fulfillment of the contract, shall be brought after a period of six years from and after the maturity date of such bond.
[ 1939 c 57 s 1; RRS s 157-2.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: Transitional proviso omitted. The proviso reads: "PROVIDED, That this section shall not apply to actions not otherwise barred on such irrigation district bonds heretofore issued, if the same shall be commenced within six (6) months after the taking effect of this act".
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Melody Petlig, Appellant/cr-respondent V. The Est. Of Gary Webb, Respondent/cr-appellants, No. 84007-0 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Melody Petlig, Appellant/cr-respondent V. The Est. Of Gary Webb, Respondent/cr-appellants, No. 84007-0 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023). “Citing relevant case law, it concluded that though Melody had no equitable right in ownership of the property itself, she had a “right of reimbursement” for the improvements she had made to the house over the years and property taxes she had paid.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.060(3): 1 case
Melody Petlig, Appellant/cr-respondent V. The Est. Of Gary Webb, Respondent/cr-appellants, No. 84007-0 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023). “Citing relevant case law, it concluded that though Melody had no equitable right in ownership of the property itself, she had a “right of reimbursement” for the improvements she had made to the house over the years and property taxes she had paid.”
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.