Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.910 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The purposes of this chapter are hereby declared remedial and shall be liberally construed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Miller v. City of Tacoma, 979 P.2d 429 (Wash. 1999).
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 979 P.2d 429 (Wash. 1999). “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Miller v. City of Tacoma, 138 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 1999). “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their pubbc servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Teaford v. Howard, 707 P.2d 1327 (Wash. 1985). “RCW 42.30.910. It requires "meetings" of public bodies to be open and public.”
Refai v. Cent. Washington Univ., 742 P.2d 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “010, and that the act is remedial and should be liberally construed, RCW 42.30.910. However, even under a very liberal construction, the SEC is not a "governing body" of Central.”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 27 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for *1215 them to know.”
Wexford Cnty. Prosecutor v. Pranger, 268 N.W.2d 344 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “§ 82-3401 (1966); Wash. Rev. Code § 42.30.910 (1974). See also Common Cause Proposed Act, supra note 1309, § 1; 36 Op.”
Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 107 Wash. App. 550 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”
West v. Washington Ass'n of Cnty. Officials, 162 Wash. App. 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 42.30.910. An entity is created “pursuant to” a statute if it is created “in conformity with or in the course of carrying out [a statute], implying that what is done is in accordance with an instruction or direction.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash. App. 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 42.30.910. To defeat summary dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing “(1) that a ‘member’ of a governing body (2) attended a ‘meeting’ of that body (3) where ‘action’ was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had ‘knowledge’…”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 39 P.3d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 42.30.910. To defeat summary dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a `member' of a governing body (2) attended a `meeting' of that body (3) where `action' was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had `knowledge'…”
Donna Zink & Jeff Zink v. City of Mesa, 487 P.3d 902 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 42.30.910. As such, its provision for award of attorney fees must be liberally construed.”
Tuscola Wind III, LLC v. Almer Charter Twp., 327 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “The Wood court held that this was a legislative question, not a judicial one, while acknowledging both the construction directive in RCW 42.30.910, which directs that the open meetings act should be construed liberally, and the Legislature's forceful declaration of legislative…”
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.