Wash. Rev. Code » Title 87 · Chapter 87.03
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 87.03.665 (2026)

Exclusion of lands from district—Order denying or granting petition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The board of directors, if they deem it not for the best interest of the district, or consolidated district, as the case may be, that the lands, or the former district, mentioned in the petition, or some portion thereof, should be excluded from said district, or consolidated district, shall order that said petition be denied; but if they deem it for the best interests of the district, or consolidated district, as the case may be, that the lands, or the former district, as the case may be, be excluded from the district, or consolidated district, and if no person interested in the district shows cause, in writing, why the prayer of the petition should not be granted, or if having shown cause withdraws the same, and also, if there be no outstanding bonds of the district, and no contract between the district and the United States, or the state of Washington, then the board may order that the lands mentioned in the petition, or some defined portion thereof, or the former district mentioned in the petition, be excluded from the district, or consolidated district, as the case may be, and the former district be reestablished.
[ 1921 c 129 s 39; 1915 c 179 s 24; 1889-90 p 700 s 64; RRS s 7490. Formerly RCW 87.44.190.]

Notes:

Board's powers and duties generally (contracts with state and United States): RCW 87.03.140.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1988–1988 · leading case: Hous. Auth. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 753 P.2d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hous. Auth. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 753 P.2d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “210), (2) the court did not consider the situation where a specific exemption existed, as in this case, (3) there was no argument that the property did not benefit from the assessment; here SHA makes no use of the irrigation services provided by SVID, and (4) there was no stated…”
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.