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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.080 (2026)

Further relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. When the application is deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.
[ 1935 c 113 s 8; RRS s 784-8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “24 RCW, and his request for restitution is not an independent cause of action but rather simply a request for additional relief, damages, under RCW 7.24.080. ¶ 32 Given the severity of the flaws in the majority's opinion, I must dissent.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 160 Wash. 2d 173 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.24.080 allows further relief to be granted whenever necessary or proper.”
State Of Washington, V Kevin S. Robinson, 374 P.3d 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “010 and RCW 7.24.080” in the superior court. Clerk’s Papers at 25.”
Ronken v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 572 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1977). “This principle is also codified in RCW 7.24.080. The commissioners' next major contention, in effect, is that they must use their best judgment and determine for themselves whether public works should be let by contract to the private sector or accomplished by day labor by…”
MacKey v. Maurer, 220 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “This principle is also codified in RCW 7.24.080.[ [2] ] Ronken v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Snohomish County, 89 Wash.”
Mackey v. Maurer, 153 Wash. App. 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “This principle is also codified in RCW 7.24.080. [2] Ronken v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Snohomish County, 89 Wn.”
United Nursing Homes, Inc. v. McNutt, 669 P.2d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “See RCW 7.24.080; Ronken v. Board of Cy. Comm'rs, 89 Wn.”
In Re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 623 F. Supp. 1466 (W.D. Wash. 1985). “§ 2201 , RCW 7.24.080. A situation analogous to the present one is presented in Gallagher v.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 129 Wash. App. 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Finally, the complaint also seeks further relief under RCW 7.24.080, alleging that Mr. Nelson should receive restitution because Appleway has been unjustly enriched.”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 33× “When the Club continued to operate a shooting facility despite its failure to obtain an operating permit, the County sought further relief under RCW 7.24.080. The trial court granted the County’s request for a permanent injunction, which enjoined the Club from operating a…”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 121 P.3d 95 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Finally, the complaint also seeks further relief under RCW 7.24.080, alleging that Mr. Nelson should receive restitution because Appleway has been unjustly enriched.”
Pac. Mkt. Int'l v. Tcam Core Prop. Fund (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “74623-5-1/5 asked the trial court to enter a money judgment as further relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW 7.24.080. TCAM employed proper procedure.”
Show all 16 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.