Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.290 (2026)
Prohibition defined
✓ 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 of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandate. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.
[ 1895 c 65 s 29; RRS s 1027.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Hood Canal Sand & Gravel v. Peter Goldmark, 381 P.3d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Hood Canal Sand & Gravel v. Peter Goldmark, 381 P.3d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In its conclusion, it requested the superior court to (1) issue a declaratory judgment that the grant of the easement was illegal, (2) issue a writ of prohibition under RCW 7.16.290 to prohibit DNR from enforcing the easement “as a whole or as against HCSG’s Project and…”
Skagit Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 305 P.3d 1079 (Wash. 2013). “Analysis ¶8 This case asks us to decide whether the trial court appropriately issued a writ of prohibition ordering Skagit Valley to refrain from operating a health care facility within United General’s boundaries. A writ of prohibition “arrests the proceedings of any tribunal,…”
Riddle v. Elofson, 439 P.3d 647 (Wash. 2019). “2; RCW 7.16.290; High, supra, at 707. A kind of'"common-law injunction against governmental usurpation,'" the writ of prohibition is a legal order typically issued from a superior court to prevent an inferior court from exceeding its jurisdiction.”
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 240 P.3d 1162 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 7.16.290. [13] Additionally, as in Epler, Commanda's discussion of clear legal error is immaterial to the outcome.”
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 2010). “” RCW 7.16.290. Additionally, as in Epler, Commanda’s discussion of clear legal error is immaterial to the outcome.”
Cnty. of Spokane v. Local 1553, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, 888 P.2d 735 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 7.16.290. A court’s powers under the statutory writ are broader than under the common law writ.”
Brower v. Charles, 914 P.2d 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The superior court has authority to issue writs of prohibition to arrest "the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.” RCW 7.16.290. The…”
Washington Pub. Employees Ass'n v. Washington Pers. Resources Bd., 959 P.2d 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” RCW 7.16.290. RCW 41.06.340 provides: Each and every provision of RCW 41.”
State v. Harris, 469 P.2d 937 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “170), and prohibition (RCW 7.16.290 and RCW 7.16.300), the Supreme Court recites the following two requirements for the issuance of an extraordinary writ by an appellate court: (1) the trial court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, and (2) the remedy at law is…”
Herron v. McClanahan, 625 P.2d 707 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Under RCW 7.16.290, a writ of prohibition is designed to "[arrest] the proceedings of any .”
Ahmad v. Town of Springdale, 314 P.3d 729 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “2d 1202 (1996); RCW 7.16.290. As with a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition cannot be issued if there is a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy.”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Clark, 434 P.3d 50 (Wash. 2019). “Standard of review ¶ 34 A writ of prohibition "arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.”
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.