Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.56

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.56.100

Judgment of ouster or forfeiture

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any defendant shall be found guilty of any usurpation of or intrusion into, or unlawfully exercising any office or franchise within this state, or any office in any corporation created by the authority of this state, or when any public officer thus charged shall be found guilty of having done or suffered any act which by the provisions of the law shall work a forfeiture of his or her office, or when any association or number of persons shall be found guilty of having acted as a corporation without having been legally incorporated, the court shall give judgment of ouster against the defendant or defendants, and exclude him, her, or them from the office, franchise, or corporate rights, and in case of corporations that the same shall be dissolved, and the court shall adjudge costs in favor of the plaintiff.
[ 2011 c 336 s 242; Code 1881 s 711; 1877 p 144 s 715; 1854 p 217 s 478; RRS s 1043.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: Pederson v. Moser
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pederson v. Moser (1983) wash “It is true that resolution of the quo warranto action against Pederson would have rendered the recall election moot, since such an action removes the defendant official from office (see RCW 7.56.100). In contrast to the official in Janovich , however, Pederson continued to…”
Lee v. Jasman (2014) washctapp “RCW 7.56.100 outlines the authority of the trial court in a quo warranto action: Whenever any defendant shall be found guilty of any usurpation of or intrusion into, or unlawfully exercising any office or franchise within this state,.”
Cotton v. City of Elma (2000) washctapp “"When judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, he may, if he has not claimed his damages in the information, have his action for the damages at any time within one year after the judgment.”
Cotton v. City of Elma (2000) washctapp ““When judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, he may, if he has not claimed his damages in the information, have his action for the damages at any time within one year after the judgment.”
D. Angus Lee v. Jerry Jasman (2014) washctapp “RCW 7.56.100 outlines the authority of the trial court in a quo warranto action: Whenever any defendant shall be found guilty of any usurpation of or intrusion into, or unlawfully exercising any office or franchise within this state, .”
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.