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

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.04.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A judge of the superior court shall preside at the trial to determine the compensation and damage to be awarded, which trial shall be held at the courthouse in the county where the land, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated or acquired is situated: and in the case of each such trial by jury the jurors by their verdict shall fix as a lump sum the total amount of damages which shall result to all persons or parties and to any county and to all tenants, encumbrancers and others interested therein, by reason of the appropriation and use of the lands, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated or acquired. Upon the trial, witnesses may be examined in behalf of either party to the proceedings as in civil actions; and a witness served with a subpoena in each proceeding shall be punished for failure to appear at such trial, or for perjury, as upon a trial of a civil action. In case a jury is not demanded as provided for in *section 894 such total amount of damages shall be ascertained and determined by the court or judge thereof and the proceedings shall be the same as in trials of an issue of fact by the court.
[ 1925 ex.s. c 98 s 2; 1891 c 74 s 5; RRS s 895.]

Notes:

Rules of court: CR 26 through 37.
*Reviser's note: "section 894" refers to RRS s 894 herein codified (as amended) as RCW 8.04.070, 8.04.080, 8.04.090, and 8.04.100.
Witnesses, examination of: Title 5 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997). “092; RCW 8.04.110. This should be determined by a jury "unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law.”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 1997). “092; RCW 8.04.110. This should be determined by a jury "unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law.”
State v. Spencer, 583 P.2d 1201 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “74, § 5, p. 141, a predecessor to RCW 8.04 and RCW 8.”
State v. Costich, 117 Wash. App. 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” RCW 8.04.110. The condemnation award is the full and equitable monetary equivalent of the property.”
State v. Costich, 72 P.3d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “" RCW 8.04.110. The condemnation award is the full and equitable monetary *195 equivalent of the property.”
State v. Higgins, 449 P.2d 393 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 10× “The state objected, contending that the submission of an interrogatory of this type was contrary to the mandate of RCW 8.04.110, which provides that the jury in a compensation trial shall fix as a lump sum the amount of damages which shall result to any and all parties claiming…”
State ex rel. Eastvold v. Superior Court, 272 P.2d 624 (Wash. 1954). “The statute (RCW 8.04.110 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 895]) is not inconsistent with the constitutional provision that the amount of compensation shall be determined by a jury, “as in other civil cases .”
Michelle Merceri, V. State Of Wa Dept. Of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The State sought to rely on RCW 8.04.110 and .130, but those statutes do not address appealability.”
Michelle Merceri V. Dept. Of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The State sought to rely on RCW 8.04.110 and .130, but those statutes do not address appealability.”
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.