Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.24.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An owner, or one entitled to the beneficial use, of land which is so situate with respect to the land of another that it is necessary for its proper use and enjoyment to have and maintain a private way of necessity or to construct and maintain any drain, flume or ditch, on, across, over or through the land of such other, for agricultural, domestic or sanitary purposes, may condemn and take lands of such other sufficient in area for the construction and maintenance of such private way of necessity, or for the construction and maintenance of such drain, flume or ditch, as the case may be. The term "private way of necessity," as used in this chapter, shall mean and include a right-of-way on, across, over or through the land of another for means of ingress and egress, and the construction and maintenance thereon of roads, logging roads, flumes, canals, ditches, tunnels, tramways and other structures upon, over and through which timber, stone, minerals or other valuable materials and products may be transported and carried.
[ 1913 c 133 s 1; RRS s 936-1. Prior: 1895 c 92 s 1. Formerly RCW 8.24.020, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · 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 29× “The Court of Appeals held that "necessity" means the same in both contexts, relying on RCW 8.24.010. We disagree because RCW 8.24.”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash. 2d 126 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 27× “The Court of Appeals, relying on RCW 8.24.010, held that “necessity” means the same in both contexts.”
Ruvalcaba v. Kwang Ho Baek, 282 P.3d 1083 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 5× “¶1 Rogelio and Elaine Ruvalcaba, husband and wife, brought a lawsuit under RCW 8.24.010 to condemn a private way of necessity (i.”
Brown v. McAnally, 644 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 6× “9) and RCW 8.24.010 authorize, for commercial development purposes, condemnation of a roadway with the physical dimensions and legal scope sought here.”
Phillips v. King Cnty., 943 P.2d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “1, § 16 of our State Constitution allows private condemnation of private ways of necessity for drains, flumes or ditches across the land of others upon the payment of just compensation, and that the Legislature has implemented the constitutional provision by setting up…”
Beeson v. Phillips, 702 P.2d 1244 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “* Defendant Helen Alexander Phillips appeals a decree of appropriation condemning a portion of her property pursuant to RCW 8.24.010 in order to create a 30-foot-wide, permanent, nonexclusive way of necessity in favor of adjoining landowners, plaintiffs Peter and Susan Beeson,…”
Brown v. Voss, 715 P.2d 514 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “One possibility would be to condemn a private way of necessity over their existing easement in an action under RCW 8.24.010. See Brown v. McAnally, 97 Wn.”
Sorenson v. Czinger, 852 P.2d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Sorenson to bear the burden of proving the alternative sought was not feasible; (3) entering findings not supported by the evidence; (4) concluding RCW 8.24.010 does not authorize condemnation of a way of necessity for utilities; (5) awarding attorney fees and costs to the…”
Lakemoor Cmty. Club, Inc. v. Swanson, 600 P.2d 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “The trial court found that defendants were attempting to "condemn" their own land and that such is not authorized by RCW 8.24.010. 3 Without resolving the merits of this argument, we wish to point out that it appears that the true issue may be stated as follows: Can RCW 8.”
Jobe v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 684 P.2d 719 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “9) and RCW 8.24.010 declare a public policy against rendering landlocked property useless.”
M.K.K.I., Inc. v. Krueger, 135 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “070; RCW 8.24.010. But existence of these statutes does not negate the operation of RCW 58.”
Schwab v. City of Seattle, 826 P.2d 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “EASEMENTS We affirm the trial court's summary judgments concerning the easements. On the basis of affidavits and pleadings before it, the summary judgment court determined that lot 3 benefited from the original easement and lot 2 had an *751 easement of necessity under RCW 8.”
Show all 39 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.