Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.140 (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) Every person who removes human remains, or any part thereof, from a grave, vault, or other place where the same has been buried or deposited awaiting final disposition, without authority of law, with intent to sell the same, or for the purpose of securing a reward for its return, or for dissection, or from malice or wantonness, is guilty of a class C felony.
(2) Every person who purchases or receives, except for burial or final disposition, human remains or any part thereof, knowing that the same has been removed contrary to the foregoing provisions, is guilty of a class C felony.
(3) Every person who opens a grave or other place of interment, temporary or otherwise, or a building where human remains are placed, with intent to sell or remove the casket, urn, or of any part thereof, or anything attached thereto, or any vestment, or other article interred, or intended to be interred with the human remains, is guilty of a class C felony.
(4) Every person who removes, disinters, or mutilates human remains from a place of interment, without authority of law, is guilty of a class C felony.
[ 2019 c 432 s 22; 2005 c 365 s 140; 2003 c 53 s 308; 1992 c 7 s 44; 1909 c 249 s 239; RRS s 2491. FORMER PART OF SECTION: 1943 c 247 s 25 now codified as RCW 68.50.145. Formerly RCW 68.08.140.]
Notes:
Effective date—2019 c 432: See note following RCW 68.05.175.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2017–2018 · leading case: Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018).
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). “130(8) due to its violation of RCW 68.50.140. Southwick filed a motion for reconsideration by the Board ofthe presiding officer's summary judgment order alleging a due process violation, which is not before us,^ and arguing that it had not violated RCW 68.”
Southwick, Inc., V State Dept Of Licensing Bus. & Professions Div (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Southwick argues that its procedural due process rights were violated when the presiding officer originally granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Licensing (Department) based on RCW 68.50.140 when that statute was not cited in the original notice of violation or…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.140(1) — 1 case
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). “130(8) due to its violation of RCW 68.50.140. Southwick filed a motion for reconsideration by the Board ofthe presiding officer's summary judgment order alleging a due process violation, which is not before us,^ and arguing that it had not violated RCW 68.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.140(4) — 2 cases
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). “130(8) due to its violation of RCW 68.50.140. Southwick filed a motion for reconsideration by the Board ofthe presiding officer's summary judgment order alleging a due process violation, which is not before us,^ and arguing that it had not violated RCW 68.”
Southwick, Inc., V State Dept Of Licensing Bus. & Professions Div (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Southwick argues that its procedural due process rights were violated when the presiding officer originally granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Licensing (Department) based on RCW 68.50.140 when that statute was not cited in the original notice of violation or…”
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.