Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.295 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) Any license to engage in any of the gambling activities authorized by this chapter as now exists or as hereafter amended, and issued under the authority thereof shall be legal authority to engage in the gambling activities for which issued throughout the incorporated and unincorporated area of any county, except that a city located therein with respect to that city, or a county with respect to all areas within that county except for such cities, may absolutely prohibit, but may not change the scope of license, any or all of the gambling activities for which the license was issued.

(2)(a) A city or town with a prohibition on house-banked social card game licenses that annexes an area that is within a city, town, or county that permits house-banked social card games may allow a house-banked social card game business that was licensed by the commission as of July 26, 2009, to continue operating if the city or town is authorized to impose a tax under RCW 82.14.415 and can demonstrate that the continuation of the house-banked social card game business will reduce the credit against the state sales and use tax as provided in RCW 82.14.415(7).

(b) A city or town that allowed a house-banked social card game business in an annexed area to continue operating under (a) of this subsection before July 15, 2010, shall allow all social card game businesses in the annexed area that were operating and licensed by the commission as of January 1, 2011, to continue operating.

(c) A city or town that allows a social card game business in an annexed area to continue operating is not required to allow additional social card game businesses.

[ 2011 c 134 s 1; 2009 c 550 s 2; 1974 ex.s. c 155 s 6; 1974 ex.s. c 135 s 6.]

Notes:

Severability—1974 ex.s. c 155: See note following RCW 9.46.010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2003–2015 · leading case: Edmonds Shopping Ctr. Assocs. v. City of Edmonds, 71 P.3d 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Edmonds Shopping Ctr. Assocs. v. City of Edmonds, 71 P.3d 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 16× “He argues that section 1 is preempted because it revokes a license that only the Gambling Commission can revoke, in violation of RCW 9.46.295. He argues that section 2 alters the scope of his gambling license, also in conflict with RCW 9.”

Paradise, Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 102 P.3d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “[1] In 1974, the Legislature enacted RCW 9.46.295, which legalizes gambling in counties, but allows counties and cities to prohibit at any time such activity within their respective jurisdictions.”

Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent, 351 P.3d 151 (Wash. 2015). “3d 233 (2003) (analyzing RCW 9.46.295, which allows local governments to “absolutely prohibit” state-licensed gambling activities).”

Paradise, Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 124 Wash. App. 759 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “1 In 1974, the Legislature enacted RCW 9.46.295, which legalizes gambling in counties, but allows counties and cities to prohibit at any time such activity within their respective jurisdictions.”

Edmonds Shopping Ctr. Ass'n v. City of Edmonds, 71 P.3d 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “He argues that section 1 is preempted because it revokes a license that only the Gambling Commission can revoke, in violation of RCW 9.46.295. He argues that section 2 alters the scope of his gambling license, also in conflict with RCW 9.”

Cannabis Action Council v. City of Kent (Wash. 2015). “3d 233 (2003) (analyzing RCW 9.46.295, which allows local governments to "absolutely prohibit" state-licensed gambling activities).”

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.