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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.23.020 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purpose of chapter 268, Laws of 1961:
(1) "Municipality" shall include all counties, cities, towns, districts, and other municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations organized under the laws of the state of Washington;
(2) "Municipal officer" and "officer" shall each include all elected and appointed officers of a municipality, together with all deputies and assistants of such an officer, and all persons exercising or undertaking to exercise any of the powers or functions of a municipal officer;
(3) "Contract" shall include any contract, sale, lease or purchase;
(4) "Contracting party" shall include any person, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, or other business entity which is a party to a contract with a municipality.
[ 1961 c 268 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1984–2007 · 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). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.23.020(1) defines “municipality” as including “all counties, cities, towns, districts, and other municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations organized under the laws of the state of Washington.”
Citizens for Des Moines, Inc. v. Petersen, 106 P.3d 290 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 42.23.020(3). Thus, somewhat unhelpfully for our purposes, a "contract" is a "contract.”
Citizens for Des Moines, Inc. v. Petersen, 125 Wash. App. 760 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 42.23.020(3). Thus, somewhat unhelpfully for our purposes, a “contract” is a “contract.”
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 14 P.3d 806 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Manson qualify as municipal officers under RCW 42.23.020(1) and (2). Assuming chapter 42.”
Hubbard v. Spokene Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “]" RCW 42.23.020. The majority maintains that Mr.”
Valley Env't Lab'y, LLC v. Yakima Cnty., 159 P.3d 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Osborne was not a “municipal officer” within the meaning of RCW 42.23.020. DISCUSSION “Municipal Officer” under RCW 42.”
McIntyre v. Whatcom Cnty., 38 Wash. App. 104 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “2d 515 (1971), such as a county, RCW 42.23.020. Our state constitution likewise provides: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.23.020(1) — 3 cases
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 42.23.020(1) defines “municipality” as including “all counties, cities, towns, districts, and other municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations organized under the laws of the state of Washington.”
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 14 P.3d 806 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Manson qualify as municipal officers under RCW 42.23.020(1) and (2). Assuming chapter 42.”
Hubbard v. Spokene Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). “]" RCW 42.23.020. The majority maintains that Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.23.020(2) — 3 cases
Hubbard v. Spokane Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 42.23.020(1) defines “municipality” as including “all counties, cities, towns, districts, and other municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations organized under the laws of the state of Washington.”
Hubbard v. Spokene Cnty., 50 P.3d 602 (Wash. 2002). “]" RCW 42.23.020. The majority maintains that Mr.”
Valley Env't Lab'y, LLC v. Yakima Cnty., 159 P.3d 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Osborne was not a “municipal officer” within the meaning of RCW 42.23.020. DISCUSSION “Municipal Officer” under RCW 42.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.23.020(3) — 2 cases
Citizens for Des Moines, Inc. v. Petersen, 106 P.3d 290 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 42.23.020(3). Thus, somewhat unhelpfully for our purposes, a "contract" is a "contract.”
Citizens for Des Moines, Inc. v. Petersen, 125 Wash. App. 760 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 42.23.020(3). Thus, somewhat unhelpfully for our purposes, a “contract” is a “contract.”
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.