Legal Opinion

Gorman v. City of Woodinville

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2012No. 85962-1PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJ.M. Johnson, J.

¶1 Washington law is clear that “title by adverse possession cannot be acquired against the state.” Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 of King County v. Permanente Cement Co., 61 Wn.2d 509, 512, 379 P.2d 178 (1963). One reason is the statute of limitations for establishing a claim of title through adverse possession cannot run against the government. RCW 4.16.160 provides, “[N]o claim of right predicated upon the lapse of time shall ever be asserted against the state.” We are asked whether RCW 4.16.160 bars a quiet title action where the claimant alleges he adversely possessed property belonging…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Reid v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Reid v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. United States v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Chaplin v. SandersWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. BRAZIER CONSTR.Washington Supreme Court · 1984

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Trujillo v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Roy v. Woodstock Community Trust, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  3. Darlington Ofuasia Et Al., Appellants, v. Dana William Smurr Et Al., RespondentsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  4. Carrera Ex Rel. Department of Labor & Industries v. OlmsteadCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  5. Lundgren v. Upper Skagit Indian TribeWashington Supreme Court · 2017

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API