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

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.12.530 (2026)

Discontinuance of proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At any time within six months from the date of rendition of the last judgment awarding compensation for any such improvement in the superior court, or if appellate review is sought, then within two months after the final determination of the proceeding in the supreme court or the court of appeals, any such city may discontinue the proceedings by ordinance passed for that purpose before making payment or proceeding with the improvement by paying or depositing in court all taxable costs incurred by any parties to the proceedings up to the time of such discontinuance. Except as provided in RCW 8.25.290(3), if any such improvement be discontinued, no new proceedings shall be undertaken therefor until the expiration of one year from the date of such discontinuance.
[ 2007 c 68 s 7; 1988 c 202 s 11; 1971 c 81 s 40; 1915 c 154 s 21; 1907 c 153 s 49; RRS s 9274. Prior: 1905 c 55 s 48; 1893 c 84 s 48.]

Notes:

Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1972–1974 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 504 P.2d 292 (Wash. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 504 P.2d 292 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 5× “This is an appeal from a supplemental judgment of the trial court granting interest on a condemnation award to the defendant condemnees where the condemnation proceedings were discontinued by the condemnor pursuant to RCW 8.12.530. As a background to the present action, the…”
State v. Lacey, 524 P.2d 1351 (Wash. 1974). “We have held that a property owner is entitled to interest on the amount awarded in an eminent domain proceeding “in lieu of damages”^ rior to the time “where a condemnation proceeding is discontinued or abandoned pursuant to RCW 8.12.530.” In re Seattle, 81 Wn.2d 652, 659 , 504…”
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.