Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.110 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding. In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, such municipality shall be made a party, and shall be entitled to be heard, and if the statute, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.
[ 1935 c 113 s 11; RRS s 784-11.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Leonard v. City of Seattle, 503 P.2d 741 (Wash. 1972).
Leonard v. City of Seattle, 503 P.2d 741 (Wash. 1972). “The first question is whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in the trial court because the Attorney General had not been served with the summons and complaint pursuant to RCW 7.24.110, which reads: When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be…”
Branson v. Port of Seattle, 152 Wash. 2d 862 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 7.24.110 of the UDJA also suggests that declaratory judgment in this case would be improper at this time.”
Branson v. Port of Seattle, 101 P.3d 67 (Wash. 2004). “[9] RCW 7.24.110 of the UDJA also suggests that declaratory judgment in this case would be improper at this time.”
Kendall v. Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, & Okanogan Counties Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 6, 820 P.2d 497 (Wash. 1991). “12 Respondent contends that under RCW 7.24.110, Appellants are required to join as a party "all persons .”
Camp Fin., LLC v. Brazington, 135 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶ 9 The Brazingtons deny that the statutes are unconstitutional. But they argue that the question is not properly before the court, in any event, because Camp Finance failed to serve the attorney general.”
Chem. Bank v. Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys., 691 P.2d 524 (Wash. 1984). “By court rule, intervention should be permitted, upon timely application, (1) when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated…”
City of Sumner v. Walsh, 61 P.3d 1111 (Wash. 2003). “Insofar as participation of the attorney general is concerned, the city cites RCW 7.24.110. It provides that “[i]n any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance .”
Henry v. Town of Oakville, 633 P.2d 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Plaintiff would avoid the application of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act provisions relating to parties, RCW 7.24.110, and ignore the fact his complaint was labeled one for declaratory relief.”
Williams v. Poulsbo Rural Tel. Ass'n, 555 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1976). “It further provides that When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.”
Standow v. City of Spokane, 564 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1977). “RCW 7.24.110. 4 Watson v. Washington Preferred Life Ins.”
Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 851 P.2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 7.24.110 does require that the Attorney General be served, although no time limit is stated.”
Nw. Animal Rights Network v. State, 158 Wash. App. 237 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “” RCW 7.24.110. [T]he statute expressly states that “no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.”
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.