Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.04.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In case the state shall require immediate possession and use of the property sought to be condemned, and an order of necessity shall have been granted, and no review has been taken therefrom, the attorney general may stipulate with respondents in accordance with the provisions of this section and RCW 8.04.092 and 8.04.094 for an order of immediate possession and use, and file with the clerk of the court wherein the action is pending, a certificate of the state's requirement of immediate possession and use of the land, which shall state the amount of money offered to the respondents and shall further state that such offer constitutes a continuing tender of such amount. The attorney general shall file a copy of the certificate with the office of financial management, which forthwith shall issue and deliver to him or her a warrant payable to the order of the clerk of the court wherein the action is pending in a sum sufficient to pay the amount offered, which shall forthwith be paid into the registry of the court. The court without further notice to respondent shall enter an order granting to the state the immediate possession and use of the property described in the order of necessity, which order shall bind the petitioner to pay the full amount of any final judgment of compensation and damages which may thereafter be awarded for the taking and appropriation of the lands, real estate, premises, or other property described in the petition and for the injury, if any, to the remainder of the lands, real estate, premises, or other property from which they are to be taken by reason of such taking and appropriation, after offsetting against any and all such compensation and damages the special benefits, if any, accruing to such remainder by reason of the appropriation and use by the state of the lands, real estate, premises, or other property described in the petition. The moneys paid into court may at any time after entry of the order of immediate possession, be withdrawn by respondents, by order of the court, as their interests shall appear.
[ 2011 c 336 s 253; 1979 c 151 s 7; 1973 c 106 s 7; 1955 c 213 s 4. Prior: 1951 c 177 s 1; 1925 ex.s. c 98 s 1, part; RRS s 894, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1955–2004 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Eastvold v. Yelle, 279 P.2d 645 (Wash. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Eastvold v. Yelle, 279 P.2d 645 (Wash. 1955). · cites it 12× “The attorney general filed a petition in this court praying for an alternative writ of mandate directed to the state auditor, commanding him forthwith to issue a warrant to the state highway department in the amount of the final offer made by the department to the defendants in…”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 3× “But in an inverse condemnation or quick-take action under RCW 8.04.090, [9] property is taken before just compensation is paid.”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 3× “But in an inverse condemnation or quick-take action under RCW 8.04.090, 9 property is taken before just compensation is paid.”
Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wash. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “2d 645 (1955), which examined the constitutionality of the previous “quick take” statute, former RCW 8.04.090 (1951), 11 the court stated: *391 [U]nder [article I, section 16] .”
City of Everett v. Weborg, 691 P.2d 242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “Weborg contends that the City's offer was invalid since the City failed to follow the procedural order required by RCW 8.04.090. 1 The trial court found that RCW 8.”
State v. Costich, 117 Wash. App. 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “070 creates an additional inducement to the owner to transfer possession to the State early in the proceedings.”
State v. Trask, 91 Wash. App. 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Relying on RCW 8.04.090 and 8.04.092, the State says it is not liable for interest because Trask failed to deliver possession of the entire property until after judgment had been entered.”
State v. Swarva, 541 P.2d 982 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 6× “At the trial, the State's appraisal experts testified to just compensation on a raw acreage basis, in amounts of $87,000 and $94,000.”
State v. Hallauer, 624 P.2d 736 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “The Hallauers raise two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying an allowance of interest from the date the owners stipulated to immediate possession to the date of the stipulated judgment; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying interest from the date of…”
State v. Wachsmith, 479 P.2d 943 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 6× “1 in Exhibit “A” attached to the petition on file herein, according to the terms and conditions of RCW 8.04.090 through 8.04.094, which terms and conditions and description are incorporated by reference herein.”
State v. Teuscher, 761 P.2d 49 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 4× “2 in Exhibit "A" attached to the petition on file herein, according to the terms and conditions of RCW 8.04.090 through 8.04-.094, which terms and conditions and description are incorporated by reference herein.”
State v. Lacey, 524 P.2d 1351 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 4× “RCW 8.04.090. 1 Interest on that offer is provided for in RCW 8.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.