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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.100 (2026)

Costs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any proceeding under this chapter, the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just.
[ 1935 c 113 s 10; RRS s 784-10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 6× “260 or RCW 7.24.100, pursuant to the "common fund/common benefit" doctrine as an exception to the American Rule, or under the court's inherent equitable powers.”
Soundgarden v. Eikenberry, 871 P.2d 1050 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 6× “[77] However, RCW 7.24.100 provides that "[i]n any proceeding under this chapter, [78] the *777 court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just".”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 7.24.100 provides that "[i]n any proceeding under this chapter, the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wash. 2d 251 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 7.24.100 provides that “[i]n any proceeding under this chapter, the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable.”
Washington State Commc'n Access Proj. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 293 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “In contrast, RCW 7.24.100 of the UDJA does not provide for an attorney fee award to the prevailing party.”
Rains v. State, Dept. of Shs, Dcs, 989 P.2d 558 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “She further contends costs, excluding attorney fees, may be awarded under RCW 7.24.100 or that her attorney fees may be awarded under RCW 4.”
City of Seattle v. McCready, 931 P.2d 156 (Wash. 1997). “2d 71 (1978); RCW 7.24.100. In fact, in the context of State initiated declaratory judgment actions regarding constitutional issues, we have previously stated: "[d]eclaratory procedure is peculiarly well suited to the judicial determination of controversies concerning…”
City of Seattle v. McCready, 131 Wash. 2d 266 (Wash. 1997). “2d 71 (1978); RCW 7.24.100. In fact, in the context of State-initiated declaratory judgment actions regarding constitutional issues, we have previously stated: "[declaratory procedure is peculiarly well suited to the judicial determination of controversies concerning…”
Rains v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 98 Wash. App. 127 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “She further contends costs, excluding attorney fees, may be awarded under RCW 7.24.100 or that her attorney fees may be awarded under RCW 4.”
Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co. v. Rose, 385 P.2d 45 (Wash. 1963). “” RCW 7.24.100. In Chapin v. Collard, 29 Wn.”
Johnson v. Kittitas Cnty., 11 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Johnson is entitled to costs pursuant to RCW 7.24.100, provided he complies with RAP 14.”
Clark v. Seiber, 304 P.2d 708 (Wash. 1956). · cites it 2× “” RCW 7.24.100. This section of the statute cannot be interpreted as express statutory authority, permitting the court to enter judgment for costs against the state, unless the action for a declaratory judgment be prosecuted “in the name and for the use of the state.”
Show all 23 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.