Wash. Rev. Code » Title 8 · Chapter 8.25
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, if a trial is held for the fixing of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the owner or party having an interest in the property being condemned, the court shall award the condemnee reasonable attorney's fees and reasonable expert witness fees in the event of any of the following:
(a) If condemnor fails to make any written offer in settlement to condemnee at least thirty days prior to commencement of said trial; or
(b) If the judgment awarded as a result of the trial exceeds by ten percent or more the highest written offer in settlement submitted to those condemnees appearing in the action by condemnor in effect thirty days before the trial.
(2) The attorney general or other attorney representing a condemnor in effecting a settlement of an eminent domain proceeding may allow to the condemnee reasonable attorney fees.
(3) Reasonable attorney fees and reasonable expert witness fees authorized by this section shall be awarded only if the condemnee stipulates, if requested to do so in writing by the condemnor, to an order of immediate possession and use of the property being condemned within thirty days after receipt of the written request, or within fifteen days after the entry of an order adjudicating public use whichever is later and thereafter delivers possession of the property to the condemnor upon the deposit in court of a warrant sufficient to pay the amount offered as provided by law. In the event, however, the condemnor does not request the condemnee to stipulate to an order of immediate possession and use prior to trial, the condemnee shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and reasonable expert witness fees as authorized by subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
(4) Reasonable attorney fees as authorized in this section shall not exceed the general trial rate, per day customarily charged for general trial work by the condemnee's attorney for actual trial time and his or her hourly rate for preparation. Reasonable expert witness fees as authorized in this section shall not exceed the customary rates obtaining in the county by the hour for investigation and research and by the day or half day for trial attendance.
(5) In no event may any offer in settlement be referred to or used during the trial for any purpose in determining the amount of compensation to be paid for the property.
[ 1984 c 129 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 39 s 3; 1967 ex.s. c 137 s 3.]

Notes:

Court appointed experts: Rules of court: ER 706.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 26× “The State answered by stating the offer was "the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070." CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
State v. Costich, 152 Wash. 2d 463 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 26× “The State answered by stating the offer was “the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
Daviscourt v. Peistrup, 698 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 44× “070(1) (b) based upon the court's interpretation that RCW 8.25.070 does not apply to a condemnation for a private way of necessity.”
State v. Roth, 479 P.2d 55 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 28× “It passed RCW 8.25.070 which provides in part: If a trial is held for the fixing of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the owner or party having an interest in the property being condemned and if the condemnee has offered to stipulate to an order of immediate possession…”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co., 376 P.3d 372 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 21× “¶21 Two years later, in 1967, the legislature “took further steps to attain a measure of equality between ‘just compensation’ and the condemnee’s net compensation” by passing RCW 8.25.070. Id. at 713 . RCW 8.25.070(1) governs the award of attorney fees, providing in pertinent…”
State v. Costich, 117 Wash. App. 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 19× “The State responded that “our offer is the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” 2 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 78.”
King Cnty. v. Squire Inv. Co., 801 P.2d 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “King County also appeals from the court's supplemental judgment, which awarded Squire $182,029 for attorney fees, expert witness fees and litigation expenses pursuant to RCW 8.25.070. Respondent Linzy cross-appeals from the trial court's holding that he had no interest in the…”
State v. Trask, 91 Wash. App. 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 11× “26, and “reimbursement of attorneys’ fees or witness fees [would] be determined by RCW 8.25.070.” 5 If Trask failed to deliver possession as agreed, the State could remove his remaining property at his expense.”
State v. Olson, 642 P.2d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “The condemnees, Arlen and Eugene Olson, appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to RCW 8.25.070 denying them an award of attorney fees incurred in a condemnation action initiated by the State of Washington.”
State v. Swarva, 541 P.2d 982 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 16× “The court noted that the possibility of an award of attorney fees, and the ability to draw down in cash the State's settlement offer prior to trial, were intended as inducements to the property owner to surrender immediate possession so that the work could proceed.”
Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wash. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “¶43 The purpose of RCW 8.25.070 is to encourage settlement before trial and ensure that each side makes a good faith effort to settle.”
Port of Seattle v. Rio, 559 P.2d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 8× “Rio, appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to RCW 8.25.070 denying him an award for attorney fees incurred in a condemnation action initiated by the condemnor, Port of Seattle.”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(1) — 17 cases
Daviscourt v. Peistrup, 698 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “070(1) (b) based upon the court's interpretation that RCW 8.25.070 does not apply to a condemnation for a private way of necessity.”
State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was "the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070." CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
State v. Costich, 152 Wash. 2d 463 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was “the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co., 376 P.3d 372 (Wash. 2016). “¶21 Two years later, in 1967, the legislature “took further steps to attain a measure of equality between ‘just compensation’ and the condemnee’s net compensation” by passing RCW 8.25.070. Id. at 713 . RCW 8.25.070(1) governs the award of attorney fees, providing in pertinent…”
State v. Costich, 117 Wash. App. 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “The State responded that “our offer is the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” 2 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 78.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(1)(a) — 6 cases
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co., 376 P.3d 372 (Wash. 2016). “¶21 Two years later, in 1967, the legislature “took further steps to attain a measure of equality between ‘just compensation’ and the condemnee’s net compensation” by passing RCW 8.25.070. Id. at 713 . RCW 8.25.070(1) governs the award of attorney fees, providing in pertinent…”
Cent. Puget Sound Transit v. Eastey, 144 P.3d 322 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Olson, 642 P.2d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “The condemnees, Arlen and Eugene Olson, appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to RCW 8.25.070 denying them an award of attorney fees incurred in a condemnation action initiated by the State of Washington.”
State v. Costich, 72 P.3d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co. (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(1)(b) — 11 cases
State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was "the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070." CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co., 376 P.3d 372 (Wash. 2016). “¶21 Two years later, in 1967, the legislature “took further steps to attain a measure of equality between ‘just compensation’ and the condemnee’s net compensation” by passing RCW 8.25.070. Id. at 713 . RCW 8.25.070(1) governs the award of attorney fees, providing in pertinent…”
State v. Costich, 152 Wash. 2d 463 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was “the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
State v. Olson, 642 P.2d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “The condemnees, Arlen and Eugene Olson, appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to RCW 8.25.070 denying them an award of attorney fees incurred in a condemnation action initiated by the State of Washington.”
McConnell v. Mothers Work, Inc., 128 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(2) — 2 cases
Daviscourt v. Peistrup, 698 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “070(1) (b) based upon the court's interpretation that RCW 8.25.070 does not apply to a condemnation for a private way of necessity.”
City of Renton v. Scott Pac. Terminal, Inc., 512 P.2d 1137 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(3) — 16 cases
State v. Costich, 98 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was "the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070." CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
State v. Costich, 152 Wash. 2d 463 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was “the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
State ex rel. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Allerdice, 101 Wash. App. 25 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Trask, 91 Wash. App. 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “26, and “reimbursement of attorneys’ fees or witness fees [would] be determined by RCW 8.25.070.” 5 If Trask failed to deliver possession as agreed, the State could remove his remaining property at his expense.”
State Ex Rel. Convention Ctr. v. Allerdice, 1 P.3d 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(4) — 5 cases
Dickgieser v. State, 105 P.3d 26 (Wash. 2005).
Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wash. 2d 530 (Wash. 2005).
Port of Grays Harbor v. Citifor, Inc., 869 P.2d 1018 (Wash. 1994).
Richardson v. Cox, 108 Wash. App. 881 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
HTK Mgmt., LLC v. Rokan Partners, 162 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(5) — 1 case
State v. Swarva, 541 P.2d 982 (Wash. 1975). “The court noted that the possibility of an award of attorney fees, and the ability to draw down in cash the State's settlement offer prior to trial, were intended as inducements to the property owner to surrender immediate possession so that the work could proceed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(J)(a) — 1 case
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co. (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(l)(a) — 3 cases
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Heirs & Devisees of Eastey, 135 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Costich, 117 Wash. App. 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “The State responded that “our offer is the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” 2 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 78.”
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co. (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 8.25.070(l)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Costich, 152 Wash. 2d 463 (Wash. 2004). “The State answered by stating the offer was “the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” CP at 396. The parties continued to exchange correspondence over the next several days.”
State v. Costich, 117 Wash. App. 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “The State responded that “our offer is the written settlement offer referred to in RCW 8.25.070.” 2 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 78.”
McConnell v. Mothers Work, Inc., 131 Wash. App. 525 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Daviscourt v. Peistrup, 698 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “070(1) (b) based upon the court's interpretation that RCW 8.25.070 does not apply to a condemnation for a private way of necessity.”
State v. Paul Bunyan Rifle & Sportsman's Club, Inc., 130 P.3d 414 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
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.