Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.09.330 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If any audit of a state agency discloses malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office on the part of any public officer or employee, within thirty days from the receipt of his or her copy of the report, the attorney general shall institute and prosecute in the proper county, appropriate legal action to carry into effect the findings of such post-audit. It shall be unlawful for any state agency or the responsible head thereof, to make a settlement or compromise of any claim arising out of such malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, or any action commenced therefor, or for any court to enter upon any compromise or settlement of such action without the written approval and consent of the attorney general and the state auditor.
[ 1995 c 301 s 23; 1965 c 8 s 43.09.330. Prior: 1941 c 196 s 5; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 11018-5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1983 · leading case: Berge v. Gorton, 567 P.2d 187 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Berge v. Gorton, 567 P.2d 187 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 8× “[3] They then allege that *760 the statutes cited, coupled with the auditor's report as well as the "admission" on the part of the Attorney General that recovery of the funds could be accomplished, create an absolute duty on the part of the Attorney General to recover funds…”
State Ex Rel. Graham v. Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417, 662 P.2d 38 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 6× “Despite the *249 fact that the funds had been paid out pursuant to a law violating the state constitution, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that RCW 43.09.330, a statute analogous to RCW 43.”
Graham v. Bar Ass'n, 548 P.2d 310 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 4× “On this occasion, however, respondent refused access to all records except those relating to the "admission to the bar examination fund." Faced with the bar's refusal to produce the desired books and papers, the Auditor sought issuance of a subpoena as provided by RCW 43.”
State v. Hood, 611 P.2d 758 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “The Attorney General brought this action on behalf of the State Auditor, pursuant to RCW 43.09.330. 1 The complaint sought damages allegedly resulting from certain procedures and activities of the defendants, as members of the Washington State Liquor Control Board (Board) in the…”
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.