Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Such action may be brought by any person whose property is, or whose patrons or employees are, injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance. If judgment be given for the plaintiff in such action, he or she may, in addition to the execution to enforce the same, on motion, have an order allowing a warrant to issue to the sheriff to abate and to deter or prevent the resumption of such nuisance. Such motion shall be allowed, of course, unless it appear on the hearing that the nuisance has ceased, or that such remedy is inadequate to abate or prevent the continuance of the nuisance, in which latter case the plaintiff may have the defendant enjoined.
[ 1994 c 45 s 5; 1891 c 50 s 1; Code 1881 s 606; 1877 p 126 s 611; 1869 p 144 s 560; 1854 p 207 s 406; RRS s 944.]

Notes:

Findings—Declaration—Severability—1994 c 45: See notes following RCW 7.48.140.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Twitchell v. Kerrigan, 306 P.3d 1025 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Twitchell v. Kerrigan, 306 P.3d 1025 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “In addition to a money judgment for damages, the complaint states a request for a postjudgment warrant of abatement under RCW 7.48.020. William and Deborah Twitchell contend the court erred in denying their motion to transfer the case to mandatory arbitration unless they agreed…”
City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co., 237 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (W.D. Wash. 2017). · cites it 3× “‘ A more difficult question is whether Seattle can bring a civil action for damages under either RCW 7.48.020 or RCW 7.48.210. RCW 7.48.020 provides that a civil action for damages may be brought “by any person whose property is, or whose patrons or employees are, injuriously…”
Hostetler v. Ward, 704 P.2d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “" RCW 7.48.020. However, in the case of a public nuisance, a private person *357 may maintain a civil action only if the nuisance is "specially injurious" to him.”
Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 117 P.3d 1089 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 7.48.020. Public Nuisance ¶ 16 In her complaint, Grundy expressly bases her claim of public nuisance on assertions that Thurston County wrongfully and illegally allowed the Bracks to raise their seawall.”
Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 7.48.020. Public Nuisance ¶16 In her complaint, Grundy expressly bases her claim of public nuisance on assertions that Thurston County wrongfully and illegally allowed the Bracks to raise their seawall.”
Womack v. Von Rardon, 135 P.3d 542 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “" RCW 7.48.020. ¶ 14 Here, Ms. Womack suffered a loss, but not a loss related to land or property fixed to the land.”
Womack v. Von Rardon, 133 Wash. App. 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 7.48.020. ¶14 Here, Ms. Womack suffered a loss, but not a loss related to land or property fixed to the land.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “Generally, a nuisance claim can be brought by "any person whose property is, or whose patrons or employees are, injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance.”
Tiegs v. Boise Cascade Corp., 922 P.2d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “However, RCW 7.48.020 provides a nuisance action "may be brought by any person whose property is .”
Vance v. Xxxl Dev., LLC, 206 P.3d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “) And RCW 7.48.180 provides, "The abatement of a nuisance does not prejudice the right of any person to recover damages for its past existence.”
Vance v. XXXL Dev., LLC, 150 Wash. App. 39 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “) And RCW 7.48.180 provides, “The abatement of a nuisance does not prejudice the right of any person to recover damages for its past existence.”
William & Deborah Twitchell, App. v. Mary Ann B. Kerrigan, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “In addition to a money judgment for damages, the complaint states a request for a postjudgment warrant of abatement under RCW 7.48.020. William and Deborah Twitchell contend the court erred in denying their motion to transfer the case to mandatory arbitration unless they agreed…”
Show all 19 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.