Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.08.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every county is hereby authorized and empowered to condemn land and property within the county for public use; whenever the board of county commissioners deems it necessary for county purposes to acquire such land, real estate, premises or other property, and is unable to agree with the owner or owners thereof for its purchase, it shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney to present to the superior court of the county in which said land, real estate, premises, or other property so sought to be acquired or appropriated shall be situated, a petition in which the land, real estate, premises, or other property sought to be appropriated shall be described with reasonable certainty, and setting forth the name of each and every owner, encumbrancer, or other person or party interested in the same, or any part thereof, so far as the same can be ascertained from the public records, the object for which the land is sought to be appropriated, and praying that a jury be impaneled to ascertain and determine the compensation to be made in money to such owner or owners respectively, and to all tenants, encumbrancers, or others interested, for taking such lands, real estate, premises, or other property, or in case a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law, then that the compensation to be made as aforesaid be ascertained or determined by the court or the judge thereof.
[ 1949 c 79 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 3991-6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cnty., 873 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cnty., 873 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “See RCW 8.08.010; RCW 36.58.010. The EIS therefore must contain a sufficient discussion of offsite alternatives.”
Cowlitz Cnty. v. Martin, 177 P.3d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “iss argued, in part, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to condemn the property because (1) the county board of commissioners acted without authority when it condemned the Martins’ property for salmon passage, (2) the Salmon Recovery Act does not authorize…”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. WR-Sri 120th N. LLC, 422 P.3d 891 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “" RCW 8.08.010. Interpreting this language, we held, "Nowhere in *902 RCW 8.”
King Cnty. v. Farr, 501 P.2d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 3× “*604 King County is authorized by RCW 8.08.010 to condemn property whenever the board of county commissioners deems it necessary for county purposes to acquire such land, real estate, premises or other property, and is unable to agree with the owner or owners thereof for its…”
King Cnty. v. Theilman, 369 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1962). “” RCW 8.08.010. (Italics ours.) Upon a hearing, if the court “ • • • shall be .”
King Cnty. v. City of Seattle, 414 P.2d 1016 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 6× “RCW 8.08.010 to RCW 8.08.080. Seattle argues that since these statutes do not delegate specific authority for a county to condemn lands or property belonging to another municipal corporation, King County is without power to do so.”
Cowlitz Cnty. v. Martin, 165 P.3d 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “argued, in part, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to condemn the property because (1) the County Board of Commissioners acted without authority when it condemned the Martins' property for salmon passage, (2) the Salmon Recovery Act does not authorize…”
Mount Spokane Skiing Corp. v. Spokane Cnty., 936 P.2d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The concession agreement was awarded to Mount Spokane 2000 and the County has done nothing to acquire the interest of Spokane Skiing. Even if the County, as opposed to the Authority, were seeking Spokane Skiing’s possessory interest, the County has authority to acquire property…”
In Re Sw Suburban Sewer Dist., 377 P.2d 431 (Wash. 1963). “' RCW 8.08.010. (Italics ours.) "Upon a hearing, if the court "`.”
Pierce Cnty. v. King, 287 P.2d 316 (Wash. 1955). “RCW 8.08.010], and reads in part as follows: “Whenever the Board of County Commissioners deems it necessary for county purposes to acquire such land, real estate, premises or other property, and is unable to agree with the owner or owners thereof for its purchase, it shall be…”
Yakima Cnty. v. Evans, 143 P.3d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “More importantly, under RCW 8.08.010, the County was required to file a petition setting forth the property sought to be appropriated with "reasonable certainty.”
Yakima Cnty. v. Evans, 135 Wash. App. 212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “More importantly, under RCW 8.08.010, the County was required to file a petition setting forth the property sought to be appropriated with “reasonable certainty.”
Show all 20 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.