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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.24.120 (2026)

Construction of chapter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.
[ 1935 c 113 s 12; RRS s 784-12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Wash. State Hous. Fin. Comm'n v. Nat'l Homebuyers Fund, Inc., 445 P.3d 533 (Wash. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wash. State Hous. Fin. Comm'n v. Nat'l Homebuyers Fund, Inc., 445 P.3d 533 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “96063-1 part test, we sometimes relax these requirements when a matter of substantial public importance would otherwise evade review.”
Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 949 P.2d 1291 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “See RCW 7.24.120. Its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 79 P.3d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “[8] RCW 7.24.120. [9] RCW 7.24.020; see also 22A AM.”
To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 27 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2001). “Finally, I am troubled by the majority's reliance on the jury's advisory verdict in this case. Majority at 1153. At the point the jury deliberated, there was really nothing for them to decide since all To-Ro's claims had been dismissed for lack of standing.”
To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wash. 2d 403 (Wash. 2001). “See also RCW 7.24.120 (“This chapter is declared to be remedial.”
Bloome v. Haverly, 225 P.3d 330 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.24.120. 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.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 79 P.3d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.24.120. RCW 7.24.020; see also 22A Am.”
State Ex Rel. Graham v. Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417, 662 P.2d 38 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.24.120. PERC relies upon the Educational Employment Relations Act, RCW 41.”
DiNino v. State, 684 P.2d 1297 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “The respondents brought suit under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW 7.”
King Cnty. v. Boeing Co., 570 P.2d 713 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “[1] The purpose of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act "is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.”
Yakima Cnty. (West Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 858 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1993). “020 a liberal construction as required by RCW 7.24.120, the Fire District does not have standing to take part in this declaratory judgment action.”
Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc., 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 7.24.120 (stating the UDJA "is to be liberally construed and administered").”
Show all 44 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.