Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 81.53.295 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever federal-aid highway funds are available and are used to pay a portion of the cost of installing a grade crossing protective device, and related work, at a railroad crossing of any state highway, city or town street, or county road at the then prevailing federal-aid matching rate, the grade crossing protective fund shall pay ten percent of the remaining cost of such installation and related work. The state or local authority having jurisdiction of such highway, street, or road shall pay the balance of the remaining cost of such installation and related work. The railroad whose road is crossed by the highway, street, or road shall thereafter pay the entire cost of maintaining the device.

[ 1982 c 94 s 4; 1975 1st ex.s. c 189 s 3.]

Notes:

Application—1982 c 94: See note following RCW 81.53.261.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Danner (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Danner (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 35× “Having considered the relevant record and heard oral 2 argument, the Court FINDS that RCW 81.53.295 is not preempted as a matter of law, nor does it 3 violate due process.”

BNSF Ry. Co. v. City of Wenatchee (E.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 9× “The City 10 is (1) taking federal funds to pay 90% of the cost of the City’s installation work, 11 and (2) demanding that RCW 81.53.295 requires Plaintiff to forever pay 100% of 12 the cost of the City’s maintenance work.”

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.