Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.160 (2026)
Authorized act not a nuisance
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance.
[Code 1881 s 1238; 1875 p 79 s 4; RRS s 9916.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984).
Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 7.48.160. [2] The October 1975 bypass constituted a nuisance under the statutory definitions.”
Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 117 P.3d 1089 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 28 I also agree with both the majority and Justice Sanders that RCW 7.48.160 does not bar Evelyne Grundy's public or private nuisance claims because the seawall, while it may have been lawful, was not expressly authorized by statute.”
Grundy v. Thurston Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2005). “” RCW 7.48.160. But a lawful action may still be a nuisance: When a nuisance actually exists, it is not excused by the fact that it arises from a business or erection which is of itself lawful; and, even though an act or a structure was lawful when made or erected, if for any…”
Bd. of Water Works Trs. of the City of Des Moines, Iowa v. Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, as Tr. of Drainage Districts 32, 42, 65, 79, 81, 83, 86, & Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors & Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors as Jt. Trs. of Drainage Districts 2 & 51 & Buena Vista Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors & Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors as Jt. Trs. of Drainage Districts 19, 890 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2017). “and all propositions on the 2016 ballot); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.48.160 (West, Westlaw current through 2016 Reg.”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club, 337 P.3d 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “This argument is based on RCW 7.48.160, which provides that nothing done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.”
Deaconess Hosp. v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 403 P.2d 54 (Wash. 1965). “Code of 1881 § 1238; RCW 7.48.160. Since, as we have pointed out, the claim of nuisance here derives not from the negligent maintenance, use or improper construction of the proposed freeway but from its intended location within 300 feet of the hospital, we feel that it comes…”
Cheney v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 552 P.2d 184 (Wash. 1976). “The UAB determined this reduction was not feasible in light of the existing traffic studies because it would result in a dead end road rather than the needed connecting arterial.”
Hostetler v. Ward, 704 P.2d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “Nuisance consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission either annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others, offends decency, or unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render…”
Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 7.48.160.” Miotke, 101 Wn.2d at 331 .”
Tiegs v. Watts, 954 P.2d 877 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 7.48.160." Miotke, 101 Wash.2d at 331 , 678 P.”
Chelan Basin Conservancy v. GBI Holding Co., 413 P.3d 549 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 7.48.160 (emphasis added). GBI and the State interpret the Savings Clause as providing the requisite legal and express statutory authority for the retention and maintenance of pre- Wilbour improvements on navigable waterways and thereby insulating them from any public…”
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 540 P.2d 1387 (Wash. 1975). “1, § 16 (amendment 9). [2] As for the theory of nuisance, the statute provides: Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance.”
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.