Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.030 (2026)

Construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. 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 maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
[ 2007 c 197 s 2; 2005 c 274 s 283; 1992 c 139 s 2. Formerly RCW 42.17.251.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 237 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 5× “The PRA is "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy [to keep Washington residents informed and in control over the instruments they have created] and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.”
Doe v. Washington State Patrol, 374 P.3d 63 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 3× “” RCW 42.56.030. We therefore start from the presumption that a state agency has “an affirmative duty to disclose public records.”
Yousoufian v. Off. of Ron Sims, 229 P.3d 735 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “We believe, however, that the county goes too far in suggesting that this factor does not come into play unless there is actual public harm.”
Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 4× “3d 1093 (2013) (citing RCW 42.56.030); Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.”
Yousoufian v. Off. of Sims, 168 Wash. 2d 444 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “We believe, however, that the county goes too far in suggesting that this factor does not come into play unless there is actual public harm.”
Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 372 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 4× “2d 592 (1994) (plurality opinion); see also RCW 42.56.030. To effectuate the PRA’s purpose, the legislature declared that the PRA “shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed.”
Sargent v. Seattle Police Dept., 314 P.3d 1093 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 5× “ANALYSIS 1. The PRA and the effective law enforcement exemption a.”
Bainbridge Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 259 P.3d 190 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “RCW 42.56.030. Therefore, the PRA is to be "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.”
Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash. 2d 398 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “RCW 42.56.030. Therefore, the PRA is to be “liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.”
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth., 327 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “” RCW 42.56.030. Our interpretation of the PRA’s provisions will continue to be grounded in the PRA’s underlying policy and standard of construction.”
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 377 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “” As a result, we must liberally construe the PRA in favor of disclosure.”
Gendler v. Batiste, 274 P.3d 346 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 6× “The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”
Show all 237 citing cases →
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.