Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.580

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any individual having reason to believe that he or she may be injured by the commission of an intentional tort under RCW 4.24.570 or 4.24.575 may apply for injunctive relief to prevent the occurrence of the tort. Any individual who owns or is employed at a research or educational facility or an agricultural production facility where animals are used for research, educational, or agricultural purposes who is harassed, or believes that he or she is about to be harassed, by an organization, person, or persons whose intent is to stop or modify the facility's use or uses of an animal or animals, may apply for injunctive relief to prevent the harassment.
For the purposes of this section:
(1) "Agricultural production" means all activities associated with the raising of animals for agricultural purposes, including but not limited to animals raised for wool or fur. Agricultural production also includes the exhibiting or marketing of live animals raised for agricultural purposes; and
(2) "Harassment" means any threat, without lawful authority, that the recipient has good reason to fear will be carried out, that is knowingly made for the purpose of stopping or modifying the use of animals, and that either (a) would cause injury to the person or property of the recipient, or result in the recipient's physical confinement or restraint, or (b) is a malicious threat to do any other act intended to substantially cause harm to the recipient's mental health or safety.
[ 1991 c 325 s 5.]

Notes:

Severability—1991 c 325: See note following RCW 9.08.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington (1994) wash · cites it 5× “See RCW 4.24.580. 3 Apart from these items of information, two of which do not come under RCW 42.”
Doe v. Washington State Patrol (2016) wash “108 RCW, and the antiharassment statute, RCW 4.24.580, were “other statutes.’’ 125 Wn.”
Fisher Broadcasting-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle (2014) wash “108 RCW, or an antiharassment statute, RCW 4.24.580, applied but simply looked to their plain language.”
King County v. Sheehan (2002) washctapp “One such anti-harassment statute is RCW 4.24.580, which permits individuals who own or are employed at research, educational or agricultural production facilities that use animals for research to apply for injunctive relief to prevent harassment by persons or organizations whose…”
King County v. Sheehan (2002) washctapp “The decision must be based on the content of the record itself, not on the `need to know' of a particular requester.”
Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Office of the Attorney General (2010) wash “¶37 We recognize the PRA’s rule of construction, which dictates that “[i]n the event of conflict between the provisions of [the PRA] and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.” RCW 42.”
Ameriquest Mortg. v. Office of Atty. Gen. (2010) wash “¶ 37 We recognize the PRA's rule of construction, which dictates that "[i]n the event of conflict between the provisions of [the PRA] and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.”
SEIU 775 v. Department of Social & Health Services (2017) washctapp “There, the court considered RCW 4.24.580, an antiharassment statute that allows animal researchers to obtain injunctive relief to protect against being harassed.”
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Seattle (2004) washctapp “2d at 263 (quoting RCW 4.24.580). Id. at 264 . We recognize, as no doubt the trial court did, that the OMPA’s exemption for labor negotiations expresses the public policy we discussed above in the context of the Act — the need for privacy, albeit temporary, while negotiations…”
Freedom Foundation v. Department of Transportation (2012) washctapp · cites it 2× “108 RCW; RCW 4.24.580). We see no reason why federal law should be treated differently.”
ACLU of Washington v. City of Seattle (2004) washctapp “2d 592 (quoting RCW 4.24.580). [31] Id. at 264 , 884 P.2d 592 .”
P Poe 5 v. University of Washington (2025) wawd · cites it 13× “In the alternative, they say that if the requested preliminary injunction is not 15 issued, then the Court should find the PRA is preempted by federal law. Id. 16 In response, PETA contends it has a right to access the information at issue and that the 17 PRA is not preempted by…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.580(2) — 2 cases
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington (1994) wash “See RCW 4.24.580. 3 Apart from these items of information, two of which do not come under RCW 42.”
P Poe 5 v. University of Washington (2025) wawd “In the alternative, they say that if the requested preliminary injunction is not 15 issued, then the Court should find the PRA is preempted by federal law. Id. 16 In response, PETA contends it has a right to access the information at issue and that the 17 PRA is not preempted by…”
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.