Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.12.060 (2026)

Contents of petition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Such petition shall contain a copy of said ordinance, certified by the clerk under the corporate seal, a reasonably accurate description of the lots, parcels of land and property which will be taken or damaged, and the names of the owners and occupants thereof and of persons having any interest therein, so far as known, to the officer filing the petition or appearing from the records in the office of the county auditor.
[ 1907 c 153 s 4; RRS s 9218. Prior: 1905 c 55 s 4; 1893 c 84 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1964–2018 · leading case: City of Tacoma v. Welcker, 399 P.2d 330 (Wash. 1965).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Tacoma v. Welcker, 399 P.2d 330 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 3× “First, it appears that, through some oversight, the city, in seeking to comply with RCW 8.12.060, 1 served its petition for condemnation with the wrong authorizing ordinance attached.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). “First, the dissent claims that the resolution and petition did not contain “particularized facts” about public necessity.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., LLC, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). “Public Use and Necessity ¶30 Once a government entity passes a resolution or ordinance, as appropriate to that entity, authorizing a condemnation action, it must file a petition in superior court requesting a decree of public use and necessity.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Inland Power & Light Co., 390 P.2d 690 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 4× “'" (Italics ours.) *125 Under this statute the United States is a necessary and indispensable party to the eminent domain proceeding.”
City of Pullman v. Glover, 439 P.2d 975 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 3× “We determined that the federal government had a *594 substantial interest in the property being acquired and that since it was not a party defendant, the action could not be maintained as required by RCW 8.12.060. We thus ordered a dismissal of the amended petition.”
Grant Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C., 105 P.3d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “RCW 8.12.060. The basic purpose of RCW 8.”
Mun. of Metro. Seattle v. Kenmore Props., Inc., 410 P.2d 790 (Wash. 1966). “Appellant complains of variance between the designation of the property to be taken as set out in the order adjudicating public use and the detailed designation of property rights taken as set out in the stipulation used during the trial of the case. The statute which details…”
Port of Grays Harbor v. Bankr. Est. of Roderick Timber Co., 869 P.2d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “RCW 8.12.060 specifies that the condemning authority name as respondents "the owners and occupants [of the described property] and .”
Pud v. Naftzi, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). “Public Use and Necessity ¶ 30 Once a government entity passes a resolution or ordinance, as appropriate to that entity, authorizing a condemnation action, it must file a petition in superior court requesting a decree of public use and necessity.”
Rite Aid Corp. & Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The City Of Kirkland (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “13 lndisrensable Party Rite Aid contends the court erred by concluding Goodwill Industries is not an indispensable party to the condemnation under RCW 8.12.060. RCW 8.12.050 requires a city to file a petition for condemnation in superior court identifying all owners with an…”
Port v. Bankr. Est., 869 P.2d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “RCW 8.12.060 specifies that the condemning authority name as respondents "the owners and occupants [of the described property] and .”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 128 P.3d 588 (Wash. 2006). “[5] The dissent makes several claims regarding the trial court's review of the evidence, all of which misconstrue our case law regarding the court's role in assessing necessity. First, the dissent claims that the resolution and petition did not contain "particularized facts"…”
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.