Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.25
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.25.010 (2026)

Validity of bond issues may be tested

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever the legislative or governing body of the state or any county, city, school district, other municipal corporation, taxing district, or any agency, instrumentality, or public corporation thereof shall desire to issue bonds of any kind and shall have passed an ordinance or resolution authorizing the same, the validity of such proposed bond issue may be tested and determined in the manner provided in this chapter.
[ 1999 c 284 s 1; 1983 c 263 s 1; 1939 c 153 s 1; RRS s 5616-11. Formerly RCW 7.24.150.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1957–2011 · leading case: City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.25.010 (statute applies when legislative body of city or other municipal entity has "passed an ordinance or resolution authorizing" the issuance of bonds and the validity of such proposed bond issue may be tested in chapter 7.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wash. 2d 251 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.25.010 (statute applies when legislative body of city or other municipal entity has “passed an ordinance or resolution authorizing” the issuance of bonds and the validity of such proposed bond issue may be tested in chapter 7.”
City of Spokane v. Taxpayers of City of Spokane, 758 P.2d 480 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “The appellants concede a justiciable controversy exists with respect to the taxpayers. Under RCW 7.”
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (1958). · cites it 2× “14386) of January 9, 1952, to be issued and sold by Tacoma to finance the construction of the Cowlitz project—a proceeding specifically authorized by Wash. Rev. Code 7.25.010 through 7.25.040.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 79 P.3d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.25.010 and RCW 7.25.020 tend to support this result.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 79 P.3d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.25.010 and RCW 7.25.020 tend to support this result.”
King Cnty. v. Taxpayers of King Cnty., 949 P.2d 1260 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 7.25.010. The statute, by its wording, contemplates an advisory opinion from a court as to the validity of an ordinance authorizing an issuance of bonds.”
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 307 P.2d 567 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “In our review of this case under the declaratory judgment statute (RCW 7.25.010), we are limited in our consideration by the plan of construction established by the ordinances of the city of Tacoma, and the license the city of Tacoma received from the Federal power commission,…”
Port of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Port of Tacoma, 336 P.2d 872 (Wash. 1959). “, and RCW 7.25.010 et seq., for the purpose of testing and determining the validity of an issue of general obligation bonds in the amount of $5,400,000 described in its resolution No.”
In Re Ltd. Tax Gen. Obligation Bonds, 256 P.3d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.25.010 provides, in pertinent part: Whenever the legislative or governing body of.”
King Cnty. v. Taxpayers of King Cnty., 949 P.2d 1260 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 7.25.010. The statute, by its wording, contemplates an advisory opinion from a court as to the validity of an ordinance authorizing an issuance of bonds.”
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.