Wash. Rev. Code § 7.40.080
Injunction bond
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No injunction or restraining order shall be granted until the party asking it shall enter into a bond, in such a sum as shall be fixed by the court or judge granting the order, with surety to the satisfaction of the clerk of the superior court, to the adverse party affected thereby, conditioned to pay all damages and costs which may accrue by reason of the injunction or restraining order. The sureties shall, if required by the clerk, justify as provided by law, and until they so justify, the clerk shall be responsible for their sufficiency. The court in its sound discretion may waive the required bond in situations in which a person's health or life would be jeopardized.
[ 1994 c 185 s 5; 1957 c 51 s 9; Code 1881 s 159; 1877 p 33 s 159; 1869 p 39 s 157; 1854 p 153 s 117; RRS s 725.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. CR 65(c).
Corporate surety—Insurance: Chapter 48.28 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: City of Bellevue v. Miller
City of Bellevue v. Miller (1975)
“1085, § 1, codified as Bellevue City Code § 7.40.080, provides in part: Wandering or prowling.”
Hall v. Feigenbaum (2014)
“¶23 RCW 7.40.080 states, “No injunction or restraining order shall be granted until the party asking it shall enter into a bond, in such a sum as shall be fixed by the court or judge granting the order.”
Frizzell v. Murray (2013)
“” See also RCW 7.40.080; CR 65(c). 2 The statute is clear that the order is conditional upon payment, which Frizzell failed to make.”
Irwin v. Estes (1969)
“The injunction was sought by private property owners, with whom the Northern Pacific Railway Co. later joined. For a temporary injunction to be issued at the instance of private parties, as in this case, the posting of a bond is mandatory.”
Sherwood Assisted Living, Inc. v. Finn (2010)
“” RCW 7.40.080 (emphasis added). ¶20 Here, the trial court acted on Sherwood’s guardianship petition and appointed Abrahams as Matthews’s GAL.”
Bowcutt v. Delta North Star Corp. (1999)
“The deeds of trust and the criminal profiteering statutes conflict.”
Mellon v. Regional Trustee Services Corp. (2014)
“But the procedure is presumably the same as with CR 65(c) and RCW 7.40.080. Thus, the court could use the bond to compensate IndyMac for actual damages caused by the wrongful injunction.”
United States v. State of Washington (1978)
“Given the summary decision-making and leisurely pace towards any trial on the merits, these state injunctions effectively will determine whether there will be any significant restrictions on the non-Indian fishery in the coming year as decreed by this court.”
Cheney v. City of Mountlake Terrace (1978)
“As provided by RCW 7.40.080 1 and CR 65(c), 2 a total bond amounting to $10,000 was posted as a condition of obtaining the temporary order.”
Jensen v. Torr (1986)
“Limiting Liability to Bond Mr. Jensen first alleges that the trial court erred in limiting the Torrs' liability for wrongful injunction to $1,000, the amount of the injunction bond.”
Knappett v. Locke (1979)
“We adopt the Court of Appeals analysis: The Knappetts, who were required by the court, pursuant to RCW 7.40.080 and CR 65(c), to post a $1,000 bond in order to obtain the February 5 temporary injunction, argue that the injunction was rightfully issued because *647 the first…”
United States v. Washington (1978)
“Given the summary decision-making and leisurely pace towards any trial on the merits, these state injunctions effectively will determine whether there will be any significant restrictions on the non-Indian fishery in the coming year as decreed by this court.”
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.