Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.36.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any telecommunications company, or the lessees thereof, doing business in this state, shall have the right to construct and maintain all necessary telecommunications lines for public traffic along and upon any public road, street or highway, along or across the right-of-way of any railroad corporation, and may erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires and any other necessary fixture of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the railroad or highway, or interrupt the navigation of the waters: PROVIDED, That when the right-of-way of such corporation has not been acquired by or through any grant or donation from the United States, or this state, or any county, city or town therein, then the right to construct and maintain such lines shall be secured only by the exercise of right of eminent domain, as provided by law: PROVIDED FURTHER, That where the right-of-way as herein contemplated is within the corporate limits of any incorporated city, the consent of the city council thereof shall be first obtained before such telecommunications lines can be erected thereon.
[ 1985 c 450 s 18; 1961 c 14 s 80.36.040. Prior: 1890 p 292 s 5; RRS s 11352.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 126 P.3d 16 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 126 P.3d 16 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 16× “RCW 80.36.040. The qualifying section of RCW 80.”
City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 260 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “XII, § 19. Indeed, the state legislature in its first session adopted a statute allowing telecommunications companies to construct facilities in rights-of-way “in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the .”
Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Assoc., 126 P.3d 16 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 15× “RCW 80.36.040. The qualifying section of RCW 80.”
City of Edmonds v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., Inc., 584 P.2d 458 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “The general law governing the placement of telephone lines is RCW 80.36.040, which states: Any . . . telephone .”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. Comcast of Washington IV, Inc., 336 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “XII, § 19; RCW 80.36.040. That right, however, was guaranteed as against railroad corporations— not public utility districts.”
City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 247 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “XII, § 19. Indeed, the state legislature in its first session adopted a statute allowing telecommunications companies to construct facilities in rights-of-way “in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the .”
Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 91 P.3d 104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “y, along or across the right-of-way of any railroad corporation, and may erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires and any other necessary fixture of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the…”
Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 121 Wash. App. 714 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “r across the right-of-way of any railroad corporation, and may erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires and any other necessary fixture of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the railroad or…”
City of Auburn v. U S West Commc'ns, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (W.D. Wash. 1999). “Pursuant to this provision, the Washington legislature, in its first session, passed an act pertaining to telephone and telegraph companies, now codified as RCW 80.36.040: Any telecommunications company .”
Washington Sec. & Inv. Corp. v. Horse Heaven Heights, Inc., 130 P.3d 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “¶34 In contrast, the Supreme Court reversed the determination of the Court of Appeals because of a controlling statute (RCW 80.36.040). The Court also noted in dicta, however, that “[ajbsent the clarifying language in RCW 80-.”
WSIC v. Horse Heaven Heights, Inc., 130 P.3d 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶ 34 In contrast, the Supreme Court reversed the determination of the Court of Appeals because of a controlling statute (RCW 80.36.040). The Court also noted in *887 dicta, however, that "[a]bsent the clarifying language in RCW 80.”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw., Inc. v. City of Bothell, 693 P.2d 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The Franchise General contends that cities have no power to require it to underground its facilities because telephone companies have a state franchise to maintain telephone lines granted *456 by the state constitution 3 and RCW 80.”
Show all 13 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.