Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.23
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.23.010 (2026)

Declaration of purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to revise and make uniform the laws of this state concerning the transaction of business by municipal officers, as defined in chapter 268, Laws of 1961, in conflict with the proper performance of their duties in the public interest; and to promote the efficiency of local government by prohibiting certain instances and areas of conflict while at the same time sanctioning, under sufficient controls, certain other instances and areas of conflict wherein the private interest of the municipal officer is deemed to be only remote, to the end that, without sacrificing necessary public responsibility and enforceability in areas of significant and clearly conflicting interests, the selection of municipal officers may be made from a wider group of responsible citizens of the communities which they are called upon to serve.
[ 1961 c 268 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). “Relying on RCW 42.23.010 and .030, the Court of Appeals held that chapter 42.”
Barry v. Johns, 920 P.2d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 42.23.010 (italics ours). Barry’s reading of the statute would produce the opposite effect.”
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 14 P.3d 806 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 42.23.010. The kind of beneficial interest appears limited to financial interests.”
City of Raymond v. Runyon, 967 P.2d 19 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “This statement of purpose has remained unaltered since 1961 and is currently codified as RCW 42.23.010. The new statutory scheme carved out exceptions to the former conflicts prohibition and defined which remote interests would escape scrutiny.”
Hubbard v. Spokene Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). “Relying on RCW 42.23.010 and .030, the Court of Appeals held that chapter 42.”
Bainbridge Taxpayers Unite v. City of Bainbridge Island (W.D. Wash. 2022). “The opinion provided guidance on a question 12 from the King County Prosecuting Attorney regarding whether RCW 42.23.010 et seq. prohibits 13 certain municipal contracts due to municipal leaders’ “beneficial interests” in those contracts 14 based on specific circumstances.”
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.