Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.48.210 (2026)
Civil action, who may maintain
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A private person may maintain a civil action for a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself or herself but not otherwise.
[ 2011 c 336 s 218; Code 1881 s 1243; 1875 p 80 s 9; RRS s 9921.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Chelan Basin Conservancy v. GBI Holding Co., 413 P.3d 549 (Wash. 2018).
Chelan Basin Conservancy v. GBI Holding Co., 413 P.3d 549 (Wash. 2018). “GBI classifies this action as a public nuisance action and argues the Conservancy has failed to allege the Three Fingers fill is "specially injurious" to its members as is statutorily required under RCW 7.48.210. 13 The Conservancy denies it is raising a public nuisance claim.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “But in the case of a public nuisance , a person may only maintain a civil action if the nuisance is also "specially injurious to himself or herself but not otherwise.”
Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984). “*332 Rev. 47, 99 n. 235 (1970). The plaintiffs are entitled to bring an action for this public nuisance because they can show it is "specially injurious" to themselves.”
City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co., 237 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (W.D. Wash. 2017). “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 affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by' the nuisance.”
Hostetler v. Ward, 704 P.2d 1193 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.48.210. Appellant alleges that the park constituted a public nuisance, 14 and that Gerald Hos-tetler's personal injuries satisfy the "special injury" requirement.”
In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 780 F. Supp. 1551 (E.D. Wash. 1991). “” While the defendants acknowledge that the plaintiffs have affirmatively alleged that the purported releases have “endangered the rights of the entire community surrounding the [Hanford] facility” (Ct.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc., 533 P.3d 1170 (Wash. 2023). “OGF filed a motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, contending that ALDF did not have standing to maintain a nuisance action because it did not allege facts that it suffered a special injury, as required by RCW 7.”
Tiegs v. Boise Cascade Corp., 922 P.2d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “” RCW 7.48.210. Here, the trial court’s instruction 12 used the language of RCW 7.”
Irwin v. Estes, 461 P.2d 875 (Wash. 1969). “" Recognizing that posting the $25,000 bond would probably have alleviated neither the imminent danger nor a potential liability in event of personal injuries, the railroad chose the way of moral over legal victory. Aside from its responsibilities as a common carrier, the…”
Kemp v. Putnam, 288 P.2d 837 (Wash. 1955). “Under RCW 7.48.210 (Rem. Rev. Stat., § 9921), a private person may maintain a civil action for a public nuisance if it is specially injurious to himself, but not otherwise.”
McInnes v. Kennell, 286 P.2d 713 (Wash. 1955). “As an alleged public nuisance, plaintiff has not brought himself within the provision of RCW 7.48.210 (Rem. Rev. Stat., § 9921), which provides: “A private person may maintain a civil action for a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself, but not otherwise.”
Chelan Basin Conservancy v. GBI Holding Co., 378 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 7.48.210. GBI argues CBC, whose members have general interests in lake access and recreation, is not specially injured by the Three Fingers fill.”
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.