Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.40.020 (2026)

Grounds for issuance

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some act, the commission or continuance of which during the litigation would produce great injury to the plaintiff; or when during the litigation, it appears that the defendant is doing, or threatened, or is about to do, or is procuring, or is suffering some act to be done in violation of the plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of the action tending to render the judgment ineffectual; or where such relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining proceedings upon any final order or judgment, an injunction may be granted to restrain such act or proceedings until the further order of the court, which may afterwards be dissolved or modified upon motion. And where it appears in the complaint at the commencement of the action, or during the pendency thereof, by affidavit, that the defendant threatens, or is about to remove or dispose of his or her property with intent to defraud his or her creditors, a temporary injunction may be granted to restrain the removal or disposition of his or her property.
[ 2011 c 336 s 194; Code 1881 s 154; 1877 p 33 s 154; 1869 p 38 s 152; 1854 p 152 s 112; RRS s 719.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 665 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 665 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 14× “Instead, our decision is limited to deciding whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief to petitioner WFSE because it failed to meet the requirements of the injunction statute, RCW 7.40.020. [3] *884 I MOTION FOR RECEIPT OF…”
Bainbridge Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 259 P.3d 190 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “[5] Nondisclosure of the PCIR and the MIIIR is therefore essential for the protection of the officer's right to privacy.”
Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash. 2d 398 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “Appellants cite the substantive requirements for an injunction under RCW 7.40.020 as authority to deny the injunction claim.”
Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 638 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “As noted above, the legislature by excepting constitutional cases from the anti-injunction provision chose not to limit the court's equitable powers in those cases even though the legal remedy may, in fact, be adequate. The court in a constitutional case need only focus on the…”
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “2d 1099 (1958)); see also RCW 7.40.020 (grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction).”
Fed. Way Fam. Physicians, Inc. v. Tacoma Stands Up for Life, 721 P.2d 946 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “Preliminary injunctive relief may be available to a party under the circumstances set forth in the injunction statute, RCW 7.40.020. 1 The court's most recent opinion outlining *265 the necessary criteria for injunctive relief under the statute is Washington Fed'n of State…”
Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. City of Bellingham, 260 P.3d 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 63 (2000); RCW 7.40.020. We review the trial court’s grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers Int'l Union, 354 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “020 (declaratory relief) and RCW 7.40.020 (injunctive relief). Unlike in Sears, Walmart is not without a legal remedy and could amend its NLRB charge or file another NLRB charge against the UFCW.”
City of Spokane v. J-R Distributors, Inc., 585 P.2d 784 (Wash. 1978). “The ordinance also conflicts with RCW 7.40.020, which specifies four particular grounds for the issuance of restraining orders or injunctions.”
White v. Wilhelm, 665 P.2d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “The third issue is whether the Wilhelms should be granted attorney's fees for damages incurred as a result of their defense of this action. The Wilhelms have cross-appealed alleging that the trial court erred in denying them attorney's fees and costs.”
Beauregard v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 480 P.3d 410 (Wash. 2021). “Ruling Granting Direct Discr. Review (Wash. Aug. 27, 2019).”
Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. 2d 200 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “2d at 888 . A. Inadequate Legal Remedy In their motion for a preliminary injunction, the property owners argued “[t]he continued elimination of shellfish and other marine life on the shorehne is irreparable,” CF at 66, and contended legal remedies were inadequate due to the…”
Show all 33 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.