Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 67.16.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) It shall be unlawful:

(a) To conduct pool selling, bookmaking, or to circulate handbooks; or

(b) To bet or wager on any horse race other than by the parimutuel method; or

(d) For any licensee to compute breaks in the parimutuel system at more than ten cents.

(2) Any willful violation of the terms of this chapter, or of any rule, regulation, or order of the commission shall constitute a gross misdemeanor and when such violation is by a person holding a license under this chapter, the commission may cancel the license held by the offender, and such cancellation shall operate as a forfeiture of all rights and privileges granted by the commission and of all sums of money paid to the commission by the offender; and the action of the commission in that respect shall be final.

(3) The commission shall have power to exclude from any and all racecourses of the state of Washington any person whom the commission deems detrimental to the best interests of racing or any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of this chapter or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the commission.

(4) Every race meet held in this state contrary to the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

[ 2008 c 24 s 1; 1991 c 270 s 3; 1985 c 146 s 4; 1979 c 31 s 1; 1933 c 55 s 7; RRS s 8312-7.]

Notes:

Severability—1985 c 146: See note following RCW 67.16.010.

Gambling: Chapters 9.46 and 9.47 RCW.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1952–2002 · leading case: Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002). “14 RCW, the state preempts the field of imposing taxes upon retail sales of tangible personal property, the use of tangible personal property, parimutuel wagering authorized pursuant to RCW 67.16.060, conveyances, and cigarettes, and no county, town, or other municipal…”

State Ex Rel. Evans v. Bhd. of Friends, 247 P.2d 787 (Wash. 1952). · cites it 2× “Another relaxation of gambling laws was chapter 55, Laws of 1933 (RCW 67.16.060), relating to horse racing.”

State v. Ensminger, 463 P.2d 612 (Wash. 1970). · cites it 4× “It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that, in the administration of criminal justice, no person shall be subjected, for the same offense, to any greater or different punishment from that to which others may be subjected; hence, statutes that provide different…”

Nw. Greyhound Kennel Ass'n v. State, 506 P.2d 878 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “By the express language of RCW 67.16.060 the Horse Racing Commission also has the power “to exclude from any and all race courses of the state of Washington any person whom the commission deems detrimental to the best interests of racing .”

Ivy Club Investors v. Kennewick, 699 P.2d 782 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “14 RCW, the state preempts the field of imposing taxes upon retail *530 sales of tangible personal property, the use of tangible personal property, parimutuel wagering authorized pursuant to RCW 67.16.060, conveyances, and cigarettes, and no county, town, or other municipal…”

Ivy Club Investors Ltd. P'ship v. City of Kennewick, 40 Wash. App. 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “14 RCW, the state preempts the field of imposing taxes upon retail *530 sales of tangible personal property, the use of tangible personal property, parimutuel wagering authorized pursuant to RCW 67.16.060, conveyances, and cigarettes, and no county, town, or other municipal…”

Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002). “14 RCW, the state preempts the field of imposing taxes upon retail sales of tangible personal property, the use of tangible personal property, parimutuel wagering authorized pursuant to RCW 67.16.060, conveyances, and cigarettes, and no county, town, or other municipal…”

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.