Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.43.090 (2026)

Final order of abatement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any final order of abatement issued under this chapter shall:
(1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.50.505 from the building or unit within a building, and direct their disposition pursuant to the forfeiture provisions of RCW 69.50.505;
(2) Provide for the immediate closure of the building or unit within a building against its use for any purpose, and for keeping it closed for a period of one year unless released sooner as provided in this chapter; and
(3) State that while the order of abatement remains in effect the building or unit within a building shall remain in the custody of the court.
[ 1988 c 141 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2002 · leading case: City of Seattle v. McCoy, 101 Wash. App. 815 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 101 Wash. App. 815 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exits, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 4 P.3d 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “*165 Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exits, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 48 P.3d 993 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “” 17 Unlike eminent domain proceedings, the entry of a final order of abatement under RCW 7.43.090 does not give the party initiating the proceedings the right to use the subject *32 property.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 48 P.3d 993 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “" [17] Unlike eminent domain proceedings, the entry of a final order of abatement under RCW 7.43.090 does not give the party initiating the proceedings the right to use the subject property.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 997 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exists, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture *991 pursuant to RCW 69.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.43.090(2) — 3 cases
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 101 Wash. App. 815 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exits, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 4 P.3d 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “*165 Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exits, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 997 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exists, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture *991 pursuant to RCW 69.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.43.090(3) — 5 cases
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 4 P.3d 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “*165 Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exits, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 101 Wash. App. 815 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exits, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 48 P.3d 993 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “” 17 Unlike eminent domain proceedings, the entry of a final order of abatement under RCW 7.43.090 does not give the party initiating the proceedings the right to use the subject *32 property.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 48 P.3d 993 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “" [17] Unlike eminent domain proceedings, the entry of a final order of abatement under RCW 7.43.090 does not give the party initiating the proceedings the right to use the subject property.”
City of Seattle v. McCoy, 997 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Under RCW 7.43.090, the court may issue an order, upon a showing that an unpreventable nuisance exists, that shall: (1) Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture *991 pursuant to RCW 69.”
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.