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

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.28.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any contracting person, firm, or corporation performing any labor or furnishing any materials upon their contract or otherwise for public work or improvement under the direction of the department or any person claiming any right of action upon any such contract with the state of Washington or who claims a cause of action against the state of Washington arising out of any such contract must bring such suit in the proper court in Thurston county before the expiration of one hundred and eighty days from and after the final acceptance and the approval of the final estimate of such work by the department; otherwise the action is forever barred.
[ 1984 c 7 s 173; 1961 c 13 s 47.28.120. Prior: 1937 c 53 s 40; RRS s 6400-40.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2004 · leading case: State ex rel. Citizens v. Murphy, 151 Wash. 2d 226 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Citizens v. Murphy, 151 Wash. 2d 226 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “CAT agrees with the State that the analogy rule should apply but argues that the appropriate analogy is RCW 47.28.120, 7 which sets forth a 180 day appeal period.”
State Ex Rel.(cat) v. Murphy, 88 P.3d 375 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “CAT agrees with the State that the analogy rule should apply but argues that *383 the appropriate analogy is RCW 47.28.120, [7] which sets forth a 180 day appeal period.”
YAKIMA ASPHALT v. Dept. of Transp., 726 P.2d 1021 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “On motion, the Superior Court dismissed because the action as to one project had not been brought within the 180-day limitation period set forth in RCW 47.28.120, and as to both projects because the prime contractor, Northwest, had executed full releases of all claims pursuant…”
Yakima Asphalt Paving Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 45 Wash. App. 663 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “On motion, the Superior Court dismissed because the action as to one project had not been brought within the 180-day limitation period set forth in RCW 47.28.120, and as to both projects because the prime contractor, Northwest, had executed full releases of all claims pursuant…”
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.