Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The application must be made on affidavit by the party beneficially interested, and the court may require a notice of the application to be given to the adverse party, or may grant an order to show cause why it should not be allowed, or may grant the writ without notice.
[ 1895 c 65 s 5; RRS s 1003.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Crosby v. Spokane Cnty., 971 P.2d 32 (Wash. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crosby v. Spokane Cnty., 971 P.2d 32 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 8× “The superior court dismissed this case involving review of a denial of a plat application on the basis the court lacked appellate jurisdiction because petitioners failed to submit an affidavit or verification in support of an application for a writ of certiorari as required *299…”
Griffith v. City of Bellevue, 922 P.2d 83 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 10× “— The question presented in this case is whether a petition for a statutory writ of certiorari should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when the petition and affidavit are timely filed and served but the affidavit is not signed by the beneficially interested party as…”
Crosby v. Cnty. of Spokane, 971 P.2d 32 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 8× “The superior court dismissed this case involving review of a denial of a plat application on the basis the court lacked appellate jurisdiction because petitioners failed to submit an affidavit or verification in support of an application for a writ of certiorari as required by…”
Coastal Bldg. Corp. v. City of Seattle, 828 P.2d 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “The court dismissed the petition and complaint because Coastal failed to join an indispensable party and also because Coastal failed to attach or to otherwise timely file an affidavit within 90 days of filing the petition/complaint as required by RCW 7.16.050. We affirm on the…”
Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom Cnty., 829 P.2d 1109 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “2 Birch Bay's writ application was neither verified nor supported by an affidavit from Birch Bay or its attorney, as prescribed by the applicable statute, RCW 7.16.050. After service of the writ application, Osberg moved to dismiss the writ action on four grounds, only two of…”
Sterling v. Cnty. of Spokane, 642 P.2d 1255 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “First, we consider Wolff's alleged failure to comply with the statute of limitations.”
Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell, 576 P.2d 401 (Wash. 1978). “Lovelace on the planning commission a violation of the appearance of fairness? Standing We hold that a nonprofit corporation may be a "beneficially interested" party with standing to seek review through a writ of certiorari under RCW 7.16.050, and SAVE does have standing in this…”
In Re Messmer, 326 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 3× “It is respondent's position that, in the present case, the father of the child is the party beneficially interested; respondent points out that the father's attorney signed the affidavit.”
Griffith v. City of Bellevue, 893 P.2d 689 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 7× “The verification block at the end of the petition filed with the court, however, was not signed by any of the Plaintiffs in the case, as required by the certiorari statute, RCW 7.16.050. 3 The court issued a writ of certiorari on January 19, 1994.”
Meadowdale Neighborhood Comm. v. City of Edmonds, 616 P.2d 1257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “In any event, where the plaintiff in a certiorari proceeding has elected to secure an order to show cause pursuant to RCW 7.16.050, and has chosen to serve it with a summons, it seems plain that the show cause order should be served, like the writ itself, "in the same manner as…”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 622 P.2d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “*235 RCW 7.16.050 provides that "application [for a writ of certiorari] must be made on affidavit by the party beneficially interested .”
Andrus v. Cnty. of Snohomish, 507 P.2d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “A writ of certiorari may be granted, without notice, under RCW 7.16.050 which states: The application must be made on affidavit by the party beneficially interested, and the court may require' a notice of the application to be given to the adverse party, or may grant an order to…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
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.