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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.060 (2026)

Refusal of declaration where judgment would not terminate controversy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
[ 1935 c 113 s 6; RRS s 784-6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Bloome v. Haverly, 225 P.3d 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bloome v. Haverly, 225 P.3d 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Its purpose is to “settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations,” and courts should liberally construe and administer it.”
Brown v. Vail, 169 Wash. 2d 318 (Wash. 2010). “” RCW 7.24.060. We invoke our discretion to so refuse such a judgment here.”
Brown v. Vail, 237 P.3d 263 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 7.24.060. We invoke our discretion to so refuse such a judgment here.”
Auto. Club of Washington v. City of Seattle, 300 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1956). “” RCW 7.24.060. “When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, .”
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Mendoza (E.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “Barajas argues Safeco’s claims for declaratory 6 relief should be dismissed under Washington’s Uniform Declaratory Judgment 7 Act, RCW 7.24.060, which permits a court to refuse declaratory judgment “where 8 such judgment .”
Paul Brain, Apps/cross-resp V. Canterwood Homeowners Assoc., Resp/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” RCW 7.24.060. A justiciable controversy exists where there is a controversy (1) presenting an actual, present, and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from a possible, dormant, hypothetical, speculative, or moot disagreement, (2) between parties…”
Jamie Nixon, V. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” RCW 7.24.060. The UDJA is to be “liberally construed and administered.”
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.