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

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.04.092 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The amount paid into court shall constitute just compensation paid for the taking of such property: PROVIDED, That respondents may, in the same action, request a trial for the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation to be made and the amount of damages arising from the taking. At the trial, the date of valuation of the property shall be the date of entry of the order granting to the state immediate possession and use of the property. If, pursuant to such hearing, the verdict of the jury, unless a jury is waived by all parties, or decision of the court, awards respondents an amount in excess of the tender, the court shall order the excess paid to respondents with interest thereon from the time of the entry of the order of immediate possession, and shall charge the costs of the action to the state. If, pursuant to the trial, the verdict of the jury or decision of the court awards respondents an amount equal to the tender, the costs of the action shall be charged to the state, and if the verdict or decision awards an amount less than the amount of the tender, the state shall be taxed for costs and the state, if respondents have accepted the tender and withdrawn the amount paid into court, shall be entitled to a judgment for the difference; otherwise, the excess on deposit shall be returned to the state.
[ 1983 c 140 s 1; 1955 c 155 s 1; 1951 c 177 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1955–2011 · leading case: State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 8.04.092. [4] Mr. Costich cross-appealed to Division Three, claiming the trial court erred in another ruling by vesting title in the State despite the State's payment of just compensation alone.”
Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 171 Wash. 2d 54 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 11× “In its reasoning, the appellate court “harmonized” the statutory provisions controlling awards of *59 interest in eminent domain actions, RCW 8.04.092 and RCW 8.28.040, with the statute authorizing relocation assistance benefits, RCW 8.”
State v. Trask, 91 Wash. App. 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “090 and RCW 8.04.092. RCW *266 8.04.090 provides that the State and the condemnees may stipulate to an order for immediate possession and use; that the order shall set forth the amount the State is tendering; that the State shall pay that amount into court; and that the trial…”
Orion Corp. v. State, 747 P.2d 1062 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “, RCW 8.04.092. The State based its purchase offer on its consistently held view that the public trust doctrine, as implemented by the SMA and the SCSMMP, barred Orion's plan to dredge and fill the tidelands.”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “See RCW 8.04.092. These rules apply with equal force in temporary regulatory takings cases because a temporary regulatory taking is no different in kind from a permanent taking, in that compensation is required for the same reason it is required when the State takes property…”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “See RCW 8.04.092. These rules apply with equal force in temporary regulatory takings cases because a temporary regulatory taking is no different in kind from a permanent taking, in that compensation is required for the same reason it is required when the State takes property…”
State v. Costich, 152 Wash. 2d 463 (Wash. 2004). “, RCW 8.04.092 (“The amount paid into court shall constitute just compensation paid for the taking of such property.”
State v. Teuscher, 761 P.2d 49 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 6× “The principal question involves to what extent the lien creditors must repay the State for the difference between the verdict and the amount tendered and withdrawn as provided for in RCW 8.04.092. In 1982 the State sought acquisition for highway construction of approximately 190…”
State Ex Rel. Eastvold v. Yelle, 279 P.2d 645 (Wash. 1955). · cites it 4× “" In RCW 8.04.092, there is clearly an admission by the legislature that the amount paid into court is not necessarily just compensation, inasmuch as the property owner may elect to have a jury or court determine this question after the state has taken possession: "The amount…”
State v. Swarva, 541 P.2d 982 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 6× “The State responds by pointing to RCW 8.04.092, [2] incorporated by reference in the agreement by which the owners drew down the settlement deposit, *33 which states that should the verdict be less than the amount paid into court, the State shall be entitled to a judgment for…”
State v. Hallauer, 624 P.2d 736 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “040, which provide in relevant part: 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…”
Lange v. State, 547 P.2d 282 (Wash. 1976). “RCW 8.04.092, 8.04.110. In discharging this obligation, the courts must be guided by considerations of fairness and justice.”
Show all 28 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.