Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.050 (2026)

General powers not restricted by express enumeration

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The enumeration in RCW 7.24.020 and 7.24.030 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in RCW 7.24.010, in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.
[ 1985 c 9 s 2. Prior: 1984 c 149 s 3; 1935 c 113 s 5; RRS s 784-5.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: 1985 c 9 reenacted RCW 7.24.050 without amendment.
Short title—Application—1985 c 30: See RCW 11.02.900 and 11.02.901.
Purpose—Reenactment—1985 c 9: "The purpose of this act is to make technical corrections to chapter 149, Laws of 1984, and to ensure that the changes made in that chapter meet the constitutional requirements of Article II, section 19 of the state Constitution." [ 1985 c 9 s 1.]
Severability—1985 c 9: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1985 c 9 s 4.]
Severability—Effective dates—1984 c 149: See notes following RCW 11.02.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Bainbridge Citizens United v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 198 P.3d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bainbridge Citizens United v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 198 P.3d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶21 But the trial court lacked specific authority to issue a declaratory judgment for this action because United did *375 not raise a “question of construction or validity.”
Thompson v. Wilson, 175 P.3d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Declaratory Judgment Action under RCW 7.24.050 ¶ 35 Thompson's petition also sought a declaratory judgment under RCW 7.”
Thompson v. Wilson, 142 Wash. App. 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Declaratory Judgment Action under RCW 7.24.050 ¶35 Thompson’s petition also sought a declaratory judgment under RCW 7.”
Sheng-Yen Lu v. King Cnty., 159 Oil & Gas Rep. 1181 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “*98 Declaratory Relief Citing RCW 7.24.050, the Neighbors first argue that the trial court incorrectly refused to consider this action.”
Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu v. King Cnty., 38 P.3d 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Declaratory Relief Citing RCW 7.24.050, the Neighbors first argue that the trial court incorrectly refused to consider this action.”
Miller v. City of Pasco, 310 P.2d 863 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “" RCW 7.24.050 [ cf. Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 784-5] provides in part: "The enumeration in RCW 7.”
Arnold v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 875 P.2d 665 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “120; RCW 7.24.050. We are satisfied after analyzing the facts here in light of the 4-part Nollette test *661 and this legislative declaration that the trial court did not err in finding a justiciable controversy.”
State Ex Rel. Tattersall v. Yelle, 329 P.2d 841 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 2× “' "RCW 7.24.050 [ cf. Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 784-5] provides in part: "`The enumeration in RCW 7.”
North Quinault Props., Llc v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.”
Bainbridge Citizens United v. Wash. Dnr, 198 P.3d 1033 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶ 21 But the trial court lacked specific authority to issue a declaratory judgment for this action because United did not raise a "question of construction or validity.”
Jamie Nixon, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “020 states that a person whose “rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute” may seek a judicial determination regarding the “construction or validity arising under the .”
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.