Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.080 (2026)

Bond not required of state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No bond shall be required of the state of Washington for any purpose in any case in any of the courts of the state of Washington and the state of Washington shall be, on proper showing, entitled to any orders, injunctions and writs of whatever nature without bond notwithstanding the provisions of any existing statute requiring that bonds be furnished by private parties.
[ 1935 c 122 s 1; RRS s 390-3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1973–2016 · leading case: Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 530 P.2d 234 (Wash. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 530 P.2d 234 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 10× “The Chief Justice stayed the trial court's order and set the matter over to the hearing on the merits of the principal case. The City contends that no supersedeas bond is required of it to stay execution of judgment against it pending appeal.”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 721 P.2d 511 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “Ordinarily, a party must file a supersedeas bond in order to supersede the enforcement of a trial court decision pending appeal. RAP 8.”
Keith L. & Kay Burdine Holmquist & Fredrick Kaseburg v. City Of Seattle, 368 P.3d 234 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Ordinarily, a party must file a supersedeas bond in order to supersede the enforcement of a trial court decision pending appeal. RAP 8.”
Hockley v. Hargitt, 510 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 2× “Petitioners never sought a continuance. Again compliance with the rule would have been preferable, but in this particular instance, no prejudice is shown when petitioners were given ample time to present countervailing arguments and affidavits.”
Cnty. of Spokane v. Gifford, 513 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “2d 1123 (1973), the court was presented with the question of whether the state’s exemption from posting a bond under RCW 4.92.080 in court proceedings included a county.”
Lampson Universal Rigging, Inc. v. Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys., 715 P.2d 1131 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 6× “WPPSS immediately filed a notice of supersedeas and asserted that pursuant to RCW 4.92.080, the judgment was superseded without bond pending appeal.”
Cheney v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 583 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “Pursuant to RCW 4.92.080 no security shall be required of the State of Washington, municipal corporations or political subdivisions of the State of Washington.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. CityBank, 995 P.2d 119 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “It then argues that the bond requirement is satisfied here because, under RCW 4.92.080, government agencies proceeding on behalf of the State are exempt from having to post bonds in any action.”
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.