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

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.28.025 (2026)

✓ 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 department establishes the location, width, and lines of any new highway, or declares any such new highway as a limited access facility and schedules the acquisition of the right-of-way for the highway or facility within the ensuing two years, it may cause the description and plan of any such highway to be made, showing the center line of the highway and the established width thereof, and attach thereto a certified copy of the resolution. Such description, plan, and resolution shall then be recorded in the office of the county auditor of the proper county.
[ 1999 c 233 s 5; 1984 c 7 s 165; 1977 ex.s. c 225 s 1; 1961 c 13 s 47.28.025. Prior: 1955 c 161 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—1999 c 233: See note following RCW 4.28.320.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1958–2016 · leading case: Lange v. State, 547 P.2d 282 (Wash. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lange v. State, 547 P.2d 282 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “On December 1, 1969, the State issued its formal notice under RCW 47.28.025 and 47.28.026 describing the location and width of the proposed highway.”
Tapio Inv. Co. I v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 384 P.3d 600 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Because of “the uncertainties of federal aid and the state level of funding of proposed construction or improvement of state highways,” the Department’s plans for highway improvements “shall be deemed tentative until filed with the county auditor as authorized in RCW 47.28.025…”
State Ex Rel. Sternoff v. SUP'R CT. FOR KING CTY., 325 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 2× “Likewise, the areas affected by these ramps are lettered similarly. " . ■ This matter was first heard, in the trial court in August,.”
State v. Sternoff, 392 P.2d 222 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 6× “Error is assigned to rulings of the trial court precluding submission, in the condemnation action, of a claim for damages purportedly arising from imposition of a so-called “freeze order” upon the property pursuant to RCW 47.28.025 and 47.28.026. These statutes provide:…”
State v. Corey, 366 P.2d 185 (Wash. 1961). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal from a judgment in a condemnation action, awarding the respondents compensation for damages to their property located in the path of the *99 proposed freeway in Seattle, said damages having been incurred by reason of the appellant’s having taken advantage of…”
Hall v. King Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 43, 408 P.2d 14 (Wash. 1965). “The plaintiff contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit a portion of plaintiff’s exhibit 6, which was a copy of a map prepared by the Highway Department and filed with the King County Auditor pursuant to RCW 47.28.025. The excluded portion contained measurements of 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.