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

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.24.025 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If it is determined that an owner, or one entitled to the beneficial use of land, is entitled to a private way of necessity and it is determined that there is more than one possible route for the private way of necessity, the selection of the route shall be guided by the following priorities in the following order:
(1) Nonagricultural and nonsilvicultural land shall be used if possible.
(2) The least-productive land shall be used if it is necessary to cross agricultural land.
(3) The relative benefits and burdens of the various possible routes shall be weighed to establish an equitable balance between the benefits to the land for which the private way of necessity is sought and the burdens to the land over which the private way of necessity is to run.
[ 1988 c 129 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Noble v. Safe Harbor Fam. Pres. Trust, 167 Wash. 2d 11 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Noble v. Safe Harbor Fam. Pres. Trust, 167 Wash. 2d 11 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 6× “030 permits, but does not require, a trial court to grant a condemnee attorney fees.”
Kennedy v. Martin, 63 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “RCW 8.24.025 eliminated the bad faith requirement and, instead, required that the chosen route be more equitable than the alternative.”
Sorenson v. Czinger, 852 P.2d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “RCW 8.24.025 permits the trial court to choose among alternative routes if "it is determined that there is more than one possible route for the private way of necessity.”
Noble v. Safe Harbor Pres. Trust, 216 P.3d 1007 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 5× “Citing RCW 8.24.025, [7] the court confirmed the condemnor has the burden of proving necessity for a private way, including the absence of feasible alternatives.”
Kennedy v. Martin, 63 P.3d 866 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “RCW 8.24.025 eliminated the bad faith requirement and, instead, required that the chosen route be more equitable than the alternative.”
Noble v. Safe Harbor Fam. Pres. Trust, 141 Wash. App. 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “’s presence in the lawsuit. To hold otherwise unreasonably burdens the condemnee’s statutory right to assert alternative routes for condemnation and requires the first named condemnee to prove the alternate route is better or face the imposition of fees for the alternate…”
Noble v. Safe Harbor Fam. Pres. Trust, 169 P.3d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring Safe Harbor to pay any portion of Tillicum's attorney fees and costs based on its conclusion that Safe Harbor was responsible for Tillicum's presence in the lawsuit. To hold otherwise unreasonably burdens the…”
Wagle v. Williamson, 810 P.2d 1372 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “" The trial court made the following pertinent findings regarding the benefits and burdens: 1. That the property of Respondent is presently being used by Respondent for timber management purposes and this is the purpose for which Respondent intends to use the property in the…”
Ruvalcaba v. Kwang Ho Baek, 247 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “[26] See RCW 8.24.025. [27] RCW 8.24.040. [28] RCW 8.”
Ruvalcaba v. Kwang Ho Baek, 159 Wash. App. 702 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “See RCW 8.24.025. RCW 8.24.040. RCW 8.24.040.”
Majid Nayeri, Apps V. Eagle Hardware & Garden, Inc., Resp, 548 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Once reasonable necessity has been found, if “there is more than one possible route for the private way of necessity,” courts must consider certain criteria in selecting the route and weigh the “relative benefits and burdens of the various possible routes .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.24.025(3) — 1 case
Majid Nayeri, Apps V. Eagle Hardware & Garden, Inc., Resp, 548 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Once reasonable necessity has been found, if “there is more than one possible route for the private way of necessity,” courts must consider certain criteria in selecting the route and weigh the “relative benefits and burdens of the various possible routes .”
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.