Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 8.04.070 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
At the time and place appointed for hearing the petition, or to which the hearing may have been adjourned, if the court has satisfactory proof that all parties interested in the lands, real estate, premises or other property described in the petition have been duly served with the notice, and is further satisfied by competent proof that the contemplated use for which the lands, real estate, premises, or other property are sought to be appropriated is really necessary for the public use of the state, it shall make and enter an order, to be recorded in the minutes of the court, and which order shall be final unless appellate review thereof is sought within five days after entry thereof, adjudicating that the contemplated use for which the lands, real estate, premises or other property are sought to be appropriated is really a public use of the state.
[ 1988 c 202 s 6; 1971 c 81 s 33; 1955 c 213 s 2. Prior: 1925 ex.s. c 98 s 1, part; 1891 c 74 s 4, part; RRS s 894, part.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Writ procedure superseded by RAP 2.1, 2.2(a)(4), 5.2, 18.22.
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Theilman, 369 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1962).
King Cnty. v. Theilman, 369 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1962). “deemed necessary for the public uses of the state . . .” (RCW 8.04.010) (Italics ours.”
State Ex Rel. Sternoff v. SUP'R CT. FOR KING CTY., 325 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1958). “More specifically, RCW 8.04.070 requires: “At the time and place appointed for hearing the petition [as provided in RCW 8.”
State Ex Rel. Convention Ctr. v. Evans, 966 P.2d 1252 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 8.04.070 requires that a proposed condemnation be necessary for the public use.”
State v. Evans, 966 P.2d 1252 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 8.04.070 requires that a proposed condemnation be necessary for the public use.”
State v. Bank of California, 491 P.2d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “2d 146 (1961)), or RCW 8.04.070, relating to condemnation by the state.”
State v. Farmers Union Grain Co., 908 P.2d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 8.04.070, .120; Public Utility Dist. 1 v.”
In Re Sw Suburban Sewer Dist., 377 P.2d 431 (Wash. 1963). “' RCW 8.04.070. (Italics ours.) "In State ex rel.”
State v. Burch, 501 P.2d 1239 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “They also assign error to the failure of the trial court to find that the highway commission should have established prima facie compliance with two state laws which became effective August 9, 1971: the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, RCW 43.”
State v. Belmont Improvement Co., 495 P.2d 635 (Wash. 1972). “Petitioners Joseph and Margie Malinowski, husband and wife, by certiorari (RCW 8.04.070) challenge an order of public use and necessity in eminent domain authorizing the state to take a strip of their property and utilize it for a public road so as to provide access to other…”
State v. Rodriguez, 550 P.2d 23 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “” CAROA 57 (e) (1): “A petition for a writ must be filed in the office of the clerk of the court of appeals within fifteen days after the determination in question has been made by the superior court, except as otherwise provided by RCW 8.04.070 for the review of a certificate…”
State v. Bergh, 393 P.2d 293 (Wash. 1964). “February 15, 1960, an order adjudicating public use was entered pursuant to RCW 8.04.070. No review of this order by this court was sought by respondents.”
City Of Sammamish, V. John Titcomb, Jr., Linde R. Behringer, & King Cnty., 525 P.3d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Pursuant to RCW 8.04.070, a proposed condemnation must be necessary for the public use.”
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.