Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.56.010 (2026)

Against whom information may be filed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An information may be filed against any person or corporation in the following cases:
(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude upon, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office or franchise within the state, or any office in any corporation created by the authority of the state.
(2) When any public officer shall have done or suffered any act, which, by the provisions of law, shall work a forfeiture of his or her office.
(3) When several persons claim to be entitled to the same office or franchise, one information may be filed against any or all such persons in order to try their respective rights to the office or franchise.
(4) When any association or number of persons shall act within this state as a corporation, without being legally incorporated.
(5) Or where any corporation do, or omit acts which amount to a surrender or a forfeiture of their rights and privileges as a corporation, or where they exercise powers not conferred by law.
[ 2011 c 336 s 236; Code 1881 s 702; 1877 p 143 s 706; 1854 p 216 s 468; RRS s 1034.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Evans v. Bhd. of Friends, 247 P.2d 787 (Wash. 1952).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Evans v. Bhd. of Friends, 247 P.2d 787 (Wash. 1952). · cites it 2× “, § 1034, RCW 7.56.010, the pertinent language of which reads as follows: "An information may be filed against any .”
Lee v. Jasman, 332 P.3d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.56.010 reads, in relevant part: An information may be filed against any person or corporation in the following cases: (1) When any person shall usurp, intrude upon, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office or franchise within the state, or any office in any…”
Reid v. Dalton, 100 P.3d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 7.56.010(1); RCW 7.56.020; Green *354 Mountain Sch.”
State v. Verharen, 969 P.2d 64 (Wash. 1998). “IV § 4 with RCW 7.56.010 and .020. Moreover, Quick-Ruben did not seek to invoke our original jurisdiction pursuant to Const.”
Reid v. Dalton, 124 Wash. App. 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 7.56.010(1); RCW 7.56.020; Green Mountain Sch.”
State Ex Rel. Quick-Ruben v. Verharen, 969 P.2d 64 (Wash. 1998). “IV, § 4 with RCW 7.56.010 and .020. Moreover, Quick-Ruben did not seek to invoke our original jurisdiction pursuant to CONST.”
Shafer v. Bd. of Trs., 883 P.2d 1387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Pursuant to RCW 7.56.010(5), the information challenged Sandy Hook’s legal authority to adopt new restrictions in the nature of restrictive covenants respecting the use of privately owned land within the Development without the agreement of all aifected property owners.”
Cotton v. City of Elma, 998 P.2d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “020, may bring an information in quo warranto against another person usurping, intruding upon, or unlawfully exercising or holding an office within a governmental authority, RCW 7.56.010(1), or when the claimant (relator) has suffered an act that works a forfeiture of her…”
KING Cnty. DEPT. v. Nw. Defenders Ass'n, 75 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 7.56.010(1). By contrast, a receivership is merely ancillary to the main cause of action; it is not an independent remedy.”
King Cnty. Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. v. Nw. Defenders Ass'n, 118 Wash. App. 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “A quo warranto action is an independent action available to correct an alleged usurpation or unlawful holding of a public or corporate office: An information may be filed against any person or corporation in the following cases: (1) When any person shall usurp, intrude upon, or…”
State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Munro, 327 P.2d 729 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.56.010 et seq. The information requests the court to declare (1) that Mr.”
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Lally, 370 P.2d 971 (Wash. 1962). “” RCW 7.56.010. We will assume that a corporation licensed as a private nonprofit club “injures or menaces” the interest or welfare of the community or the state if it opens its doors to nonguests.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.56.010(1) — 7 cases
Reid v. Dalton, 100 P.3d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 7.56.010(1); RCW 7.56.020; Green *354 Mountain Sch.”
Reid v. Dalton, 124 Wash. App. 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 7.56.010(1); RCW 7.56.020; Green Mountain Sch.”
KING Cnty. DEPT. v. Nw. Defenders Ass'n, 75 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 7.56.010(1). By contrast, a receivership is merely ancillary to the main cause of action; it is not an independent remedy.”
King Cnty. Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. v. Nw. Defenders Ass'n, 118 Wash. App. 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “A quo warranto action is an independent action available to correct an alleged usurpation or unlawful holding of a public or corporate office: An information may be filed against any person or corporation in the following cases: (1) When any person shall usurp, intrude upon, or…”
Cotton v. City of Elma, 998 P.2d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “020, may bring an information in quo warranto against another person usurping, intruding upon, or unlawfully exercising or holding an office within a governmental authority, RCW 7.56.010(1), or when the claimant (relator) has suffered an act that works a forfeiture of her…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.56.010(2) — 2 cases
Cotton v. City of Elma, 998 P.2d 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “020, may bring an information in quo warranto against another person usurping, intruding upon, or unlawfully exercising or holding an office within a governmental authority, RCW 7.56.010(1), or when the claimant (relator) has suffered an act that works a forfeiture of her…”
Cotton v. City of Elma, 100 Wash. App. 685 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.56.010(5) — 1 case
Shafer v. Bd. of Trs., 883 P.2d 1387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Pursuant to RCW 7.56.010(5), the information challenged Sandy Hook’s legal authority to adopt new restrictions in the nature of restrictive covenants respecting the use of privately owned land within the Development without the agreement of all aifected property owners.”
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.