Wash. Rev. Code » Title 47 · Chapter 47.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.28.010 (2026)

Latitude in selecting route

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever the general route of any state highway shall be designated and laid out as running to or by way of certain designated points, without specifying the particular route to be followed to or by way of such points, the department shall determine the particular route to be followed by said state highway to or by way of said designated points, and shall be at liberty to select and adopt as a part of such state highway, the whole or any part of any existing public highway previously designated as a county road, primary road, or secondary road or now or hereafter classified as a county road. The department need not select and adopt the entire routes for such state highways at one time, but may select and adopt parts of such routes from time to time as it deems advisable. Where a state highway is designated as passing by way of a certain point, this shall not require the department to cause such state highway to pass through or touch such point but such designation is directional only and may be complied with by location in the general vicinity. The department is empowered to construct as a part of any state highway as designated and in addition to any portion meeting the limits of any incorporated city or town a bypass section either through or around any such incorporated city or town.
[ 2006 c 334 s 22; 1977 ex.s. c 151 s 59; 1961 c 13 s 47.28.010. Prior: 1937 c 53 s 31; RRS s 6400-31.]

Notes:

Effective date—2006 c 334: See note following RCW 47.01.051.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Sternoff v. SUP'R CT. FOR KING CTY., 325 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1958).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Sternoff v. SUP'R CT. FOR KING CTY., 325 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 2× “” *293 RCW 47.28.010 reads, in part: “Whenever the general route of a state highway is designated as running to or by way of certain designated points, without specifying the particular route to be followed, the director shall determine the, most feasible route to be followed by…”
McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, 841 P.2d 1300 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 47.28.010. See Stewart v. State, 92 Wn.”
State v. Brannan, 530 P.2d 322 (Wash. 1975). “The commission did in fact consider many alternatives, including alternative routes in the area of the petitioners’ property, and finally chose the route which it found most feasible and acceptable to the community planning groups which had participated in the development of the…”
State ex rel. Wenatchee-Beebe Orchard Co. v. Superior Court for Chelan Cnty., 359 P.2d 146 (Wash. 1961). “” *665 The latitude granted by the legislature to the director of highways in making a definite location of an authorized highway is stated in RCW 47.28.010 in the following language: “Whenever the general route of a state highway is designated as running to or by way of certain…”
Indus. Welding Co. Inc v. State of Washington (E.D. Wash. 2025). “” Secretary Millar’s power is supported in this case, 15 Plaintiffs argue, by the Condemnation Petition, issued on December 17, 2020, 16 stating that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation, as authorized by RCW 47.28.010 . . 17 . has surveyed, located, selected, and adopted part of…”
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.