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

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.12.090 (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 any proceedings under this chapter wherein a trial by jury is provided for, the jury may be waived as in other civil cases in courts of record in the manner prescribed by law, and the matter may be heard and determined without the intervention of a jury. Whenever an attempt is made to take private property, for a use alleged to be public under authority of this chapter, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question and shall be determined as such by the court before inquiry is had into the question of compensation to be made. When a jury is required for the determination of any matter under this chapter, such jury may be the same jury summoned for the trial of ordinary civil actions before the court, or the court may, in its discretion, issue a venire to the sheriff to summon as jurors such number of qualified persons as the court shall deem sufficient. Except as herein otherwise provided, the practice and procedure under this chapter in the superior court and in relation to the taking of appeals and prosecution thereof, shall be the same as in other civil actions, but all appeals must be taken within thirty days from the date of rendition of the judgment appealed from. Proceedings under this chapter shall have precedence of all cases in court except criminal cases.
[ 1907 c 153 s 51; RRS s 9276. Prior: 1905 c 55 s 50; 1893 c 84 s 50. Formerly RCW 8.12.090, 8.12.110 and 8.12.200, part.]

Notes:

Juries, civil actions: Chapters 2.36, 4.44 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: City of Blaine v. Feldstein, 117 P.3d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Blaine v. Feldstein, 117 P.3d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “] RCW 8.12.090. Feldstein argues that RCW 8.”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 935 P.2d 555 (Wash. 1997). “It stated: An owner whose property was taken, damaged or interfered with by the government is also entitled to interest on the damage award sufficient to insure that he is placed in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have occupied if the payment had coincided with the…”
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 1997). “845 (1905) (act or omission which would amount to waiver of a jury in an ordinary civil action would amount to waiver in a condemnation proceeding); RCW 8.12.090. *658 Sintra proposed instruction number 66A, which would have submitted the amount of interest to the jury.”
Admasu v. Port of Seattle, 340 P.3d 873 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “9)); see also RCW 8.12.090. The Easement Plaintiffs attempt to disconnect the right to compensation and a jury determination into separate and distinct rights, but they are one and the same because the right to a jury determination stems from the right to compensation when a…”
City of Blaine v. Feldstein, 117 P.3d 1169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 8.12.090. Feldstein argues that RCW 8.”
Port of Grays Harbor v. Citifor, Inc., 869 P.2d 1018 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “” Clerk’s Papers, at 358. Clerk’s Papers, at 286. Clerk’s Papers, at 159.”
City of Everett v. Weborg, 691 P.2d 242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “See RCW 8.12.090 and In re Seattle, 96 Wn.2d 616, 627 , 638 P.”
In re the City of Seattle to Acquire Land & Other Prop., 353 P.2d 955 (Wash. 1960). “After a hearing, the trial court entered an order of public use and *543 set September 8,' 1958, as the date for trial on the- issue of just compensation, all in accordance with that part of RCW 8.12.090, reading: “. . . Whenever an attempt is made to take private property, for…”
Fisher Willys Co. v. Superior Court, 383 P.2d 286 (Wash. 1963). “” RCW 8.12.090 reads in part as follows: “.”
State Ex Rel. Duvall v. City Council of Seattle, 392 P.2d 1003 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 4× “075 is to provide the abutting property owners the right to be heard as to the reasonableness and public necessity of taking their access; that the only time the route of the proposed limited access facility will be an issue is upon the condemnor's application for an…”
Asotin Cnty. Port Dist. v. Clarkston Cmty. Corp., 436 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1968). “RCW 8.12.090 provides in part: Whenever an attempt is made to take private property, for a use alleged to be public under authority of this chapter, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question and shall be determined as such by the…”
Cent. Puget Sound Rta v. Sternoff L.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “See RCW 8.12.090; RCW 8.12.100. Sternoff argued the petition should be dismissed entirely because Sound Transit's board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting R2013-21 or, in the alternative, Sound Transit should not be permitted to acquire property for the City's street…”
Show all 15 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.