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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.180 (2026)

Alternative or peremptory writs—Form

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The writ may be either alternative or peremptory. The alternative writ must state generally the allegation against the party to whom it is directed, and command such party, immediately after the receipt of the writ, or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be performed, or to show cause before the court, at a specified time and place, why he or she has not done so. The peremptory writ must be in some similar form, except the words requiring the party to show cause why he or she has not done as commanded must be omitted and a return day inserted.
[ 2011 c 336 s 165; 1895 c 65 s 18; RRS s 1016.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: State ex rel. Burlington N., Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 609 P.2d 1375 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Burlington N., Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 609 P.2d 1375 (Wash. 1980). “Arguing that the expenses incurred by the State in defending and paying judgments in these lawsuits were not regulatory costs chargeable to the railroads, the plaintiffs applied for a writ of mandate pursuant to RCW 7.16.180 to prevent such disbursements from the Railroad…”
State of Washington v. Stevens Cnty. Dist. Court Judge (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “The State contends that the Stevens County Superior Court order for writ lacks a proper format in violation of RCW 7.16.180. The State argues that the Supreme Court mandated that the superior court issue a writ, not an order for writ, and therefore, the superior court erred.”
State v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 609 P.2d 1375 (Wash. 1980). “Arguing that the expenses incurred by the State in defending and paying judgments in these lawsuits were not regulatory costs chargeable to the railroads, the plaintiffs applied for a writ of mandate pursuant to RCW 7.16.180 to prevent such disbursements from the Railroad…”
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.