Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.20.070 (2026)

Adjudication of public use or private way of necessity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At the time and place appointed for hearing said petition, or to which the same may have been adjourned, if the court or judge thereof shall have satisfactory proof that all parties interested in the land, real estate, premises, or other property described in said petition, have been duly served with said notice as above prescribed, and shall be further satisfied by competent proof that the contemplated use for which the land, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated is really a public use, or is for a private use for a private way of necessity, and that the public interest requires the prosecution of such enterprise, or the private use is for a private way of necessity, and that the land, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated are required and necessary for the purposes of such enterprise, the court or judge thereof may make an order, to be recorded in the minutes of said court, directing that a jury be summoned, or called, in the manner provided by law, to ascertain the compensation which shall be made for the land, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated, unless a jury be waived as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law.
[ 1927 c 88 s 1; 1897 c 46 s 1; 1890 p 297 s 4; RRS s 925. Prior: 1888 p 60 s 4.]

Notes:

Juries, civil actions, selection, impaneling and swearing of: Chapters 2.36, 4.44 RCW.
Private ways of necessity: Chapter 8.24 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1958–2001 · leading case: Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “RCW 8.20.070 states that at the hearing on a petition to condemn where the contemplated use is a public use, the court will enter an order of public use and necessity if it is "satisfied by competent proof that the contemplated use for which the land, real estate, premises or…”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash. 2d 126 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “RCW 8.20.070 states that at the hearing on a petition to condemn where the contemplated use is a public use, the court will enter an order of public use and necessity if it is “satisfied by competent proof that the contemplated use for which the land, real estate, premises or…”
Beckman v. Wilcox, 979 P.2d 890 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 8.20.070. 8 Here, Beckman voluntarily dismissed his action after the trial court had approved his right to a private way of neces *366 sity but before it heard the just compensation issue.”
State Ex Rel. Sternoff v. SUP'R CT. FOR KING CTY., 325 P.2d 300 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 2× “[RCW 8.20.070], three prerequisites to an adjudication of public use are recognized: (1) That the use is really a public use; (2) that the public interests require it; and (3) that the property appropriated is necessary for the purpose.”
Brown v. McAnally, 644 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1982). “010; see also RCW 8.20.070. On the other hand a county attempting to condemn land for a way must prove that the contemplated use for which the land is sought is a public use of the county.”
State v. Bank of California, 491 P.2d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “preservation of natural beauty, *863 historic sites or viewpoints or for safety rest areas or to provide a visual or sound buffer between highways and adjacent properties: Provided, That the state highway commission shall not acquire, by condemnation, less than an owner’s entire…”
State ex rel. Wenatchee-Beebe Orchard Co. v. Superior Court for Chelan Cnty., 359 P.2d 146 (Wash. 1961). “070, which requires that the trial court determine, in a condemnation proceeding, whether the contemplated use for which property is sought to be acquired is a public use, three prerequisites to such determination are: (1) That the contemplated use be really a public use, (2)…”
In Re Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 625 P.2d 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “It is conceded that PPL is a public service corporation vested with the power of eminent domain. RCW 80.”
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.