Wash. Rev. Code » Title 68 · Chapter 68.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.200 (2026)

Permission to remove human remains

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Human remains may be removed from a plot in a cemetery with the consent of the cemetery authority and the written consent of one of the following in the order named:
(1) The surviving spouse or state registered domestic partner.
(2) The surviving children of the decedent.
(3) The surviving parents of the decedent.
(4) The surviving brothers or sisters of the decedent.
If the required consent cannot be obtained, permission by the superior court of the county where the cemetery is situated is sufficient: PROVIDED, That the permission shall not violate the terms of a written contract or the rules and regulations of the cemetery authority.
[ 2007 c 156 s 25; 2005 c 365 s 144; 1943 c 247 s 33; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 3778-33. Formerly RCW 68.08.200.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2016–2018 · leading case: Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 10× “220 provides: RCW 68.50.200 and 68.50.210 do not apply to or prohibit the removal of any human remains from one plot to another in the same cemetery or the removal of[human] remains by a cemetery authority from a plot for which the purchase price is past due and unpaid, to some…”
Braun v. Selig, 376 P.3d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “) ¶18 RCW 68.50.200 sets forth the law governing the authority to disinter human remains when made upon a private request.”
In The Matter Of The Reinterment Of The Remains Of Kyril Faenov (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “2 RCW 68.50.200. No. 72948-9-1/2 Hills of Eternity Cemetery in Seattle.”
Southwick, Inc., V State Dept Of Licensing Bus. & Professions Div (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “The statement of charges also alleged that Southwick moved human remains in violation of RCW 68.50.200, which requires obtaining permission from next of kin to move human remains, and RCW 68.”
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.