Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.56.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

On or before the first Monday in January next succeeding the date of levy of taxes the county treasurer shall establish tax rolls of his or her county as certified by the county assessor for such assessment year, and said rolls shall be preserved as a public record in the office of the county treasurer. The amount of said taxes levied and extended upon said rolls shall be charged to the treasurer in an account to be designated as treasurer's "Tax roll account" for . . . . . . and said rolls shall be full and sufficient authority for the county treasurer to receive and collect all taxes therein levied: PROVIDED, That the county treasurer shall in no case collect such taxes or issue receipts for the same or enter payment or satisfaction of such taxes upon said assessment rolls before the county treasurer has completed the tax roll for the current year's collection and provided the notification required by RCW 84.56.020.

[ 2007 c 105 s 1; 1994 c 301 s 50; (1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 10 s 1 expired December 31, 1976); 1965 ex.s. c 7 s 2; 1961 c 15 s 84.56.010. Prior: 1935 c 30 s 1; 1925 ex.s. c 130 s 82; RRS s 11243; prior: 1890 p 561 s 83.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case: Pratt v. Water Dist. No. 79, 363 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1961).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pratt v. Water Dist. No. 79, 363 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1961). “The assessor, on completing his list and preparing the tax rolls, delivers them to the county auditor.”

Valentine v. Johnston, 518 P.2d 700 (Wash. 1974). “RCW 84.56.010. Thus what might be called the 1970 assessment roll is the basis for taxes payable in 1971.”

Ppf Amli 1260 Repub. Street, Llc, App V. John Wilson, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 84.56.010, .020(1), (2)(a). 3. AMLI’s Tax Correction AMLI argues the Assessor improperly revalued AMLI’s property.”

Carl George Jaegel v. Skagit Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “3 Ajudgment on the pleadings is appropriate only if it is clear beyond doubt that the nonmoving party can prove no set of facts that justify recovery.4 The Jaegels' arguments are frequently confusing or internally inconsistent.”

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.