Wash. Rev. Code » Title 1 · Chapter 1.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 1.08.015 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Subject to such general policies as may be promulgated by the committee and to the general supervision of the committee, the reviser shall:
(1) Codify for consolidation into the Revised Code of Washington all laws of a general and permanent nature heretofore or hereafter enacted by the legislature, and assign permanent numbers as provided by law to all new titles, chapters, and sections so added to the revised code.
(2) Edit and revise such laws for such consolidation, to the extent deemed necessary or desirable by the reviser and without changing the meaning of any such law, in the following respects only:
(a) Make capitalization uniform with that followed generally in the revised code.
(b) Make chapter or section division and subdivision designations uniform with that followed in the revised code.
(c) Substitute for the term "this act," where necessary, the term "section," "part," "code," "chapter," or "title," or reference to specific section or chapter numbers, as the case may require.
(d) Substitute for reference to a section of an "act," the proper code section number reference.
(e) Substitute for "as provided in the preceding section" and other phrases of similar import, the proper code section number references.
(f) Substitute the proper calendar date for "effective date of this act," "date of passage of this act," and other phrases of similar import.
(g) Strike out figures where merely a repetition of written words, and substitute, where deemed advisable for uniformity, written words for figures.
(h) Rearrange any misplaced statutory material, incorporate any omitted statutory material as well as correct manifest errors in spelling, and manifest clerical or typographical errors, or errors by way of additions or omissions.
(i) Correct manifest errors in references, by chapter or section number, to other laws.
(j) Correct manifest errors or omissions in numbering or renumbering sections of the revised code.
(k) Rearrange the order of sections to conform to such logical arrangement of subject matter as may most generally be followed in the revised code, and alphabetize definition sections, when to do so will not change the meaning or effect of such sections.
(l) Change the wording of section captions, if any, and provide captions to new chapters and sections.
(m) Strike provisions manifestly obsolete.
(3) Create new code titles, chapters, and sections of the Revised Code of Washington, or otherwise revise the title, chapter and sectional organization of the code, all as may be required from time to time, to effectuate the orderly and logical arrangement of the statutes. Such new titles, chapters, and sections, and organizational revisions, shall have the same force and effect as the ninety-one titles originally enacted and designated as the "Revised Code of Washington" pursuant to the code adoption acts codified in chapter 1.04 RCW.
[ 2009 c 186 s 1; (2011 c 74 s 801 repealed by 2012 c 214 s 1601); 1961 c 246 s 1; 1953 c 257 s 4; 1951 c 157 s 7.]

Notes:

Application—Effective date—2011 c 74: See notes following RCW 62A.9A-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 682 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 682 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “" Senate Journal, supra at 89. [4] The veto of Governor Spellman was of an entire section and was valid.”
State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “RCW 1.08.015(2) provides that the code reviser shall edit and revise laws enacted by the legislature, “to the extent deemed necessary or desirable by the reviser and without changing the meaning of any such law, in the following respects only:.”
State v. Cordero, 284 P.3d 773 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “010, which was amended by Laws of 2011, chapter 336, section 369 to make the language gender neutral and whose definitions have been alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k). In closing argument, for example, the prosecutor stated, “I think we’ve proven each of those parts of…”
Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 334 P.3d 14 (Wash. 2014). “1 The definitions in this section were recently alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k). Laws of 2013, ch. 148, §§ 1, 3.”
State v. Reis, 351 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2015). “If not deleted, the code reviser, pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(m), would have taken out such “manifestly obsolete” references.”
Durrah v. Wright, 115 Wash. App. 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 1.08.015(2); Cossel v. Shagit County, 119 Wn.”
Durrah v. Wright, 63 P.3d 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[50] RCW 1.08.015(2); Cossel v. Skagit County, 119 Wash.”
State v. Roby, 840 P.2d 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “Because captions may be provided or modified by the Code Reviser, they should not be afforded the same consideration as the title of a bill.”
State v. Cooley, 765 P.2d 1327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “015(2)(1), such captions cannot change the meaning of the enactments, RCW 1.08.015(2). The next question is whether, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 13.”
State v. Galen, 487 P.2d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “020; RCW 1.08.015(2). The common law continued to be the guide to its meaning.”
State v. J.H.-M., 566 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2025). “RCW 1.08.015(2)(k). Current session law still codifies the definition for “sexually explicit conduct” in subsection (4).”
Kevin Miller, V State Of Wa, Dept. Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “RCW 1.08.015 governs the code reviser’s duties and provides in relevant part that, Subject to such general policies as may be promulgated by the committee and to the general supervision of the committee, the reviser shall: .”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.08.015(2) — 6 cases
State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 1.08.015(2) provides that the code reviser shall edit and revise laws enacted by the legislature, “to the extent deemed necessary or desirable by the reviser and without changing the meaning of any such law, in the following respects only:.”
Durrah v. Wright, 115 Wash. App. 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 1.08.015(2); Cossel v. Shagit County, 119 Wn.”
Durrah v. Wright, 63 P.3d 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[50] RCW 1.08.015(2); Cossel v. Skagit County, 119 Wash.”
State v. Roby, 840 P.2d 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “Because captions may be provided or modified by the Code Reviser, they should not be afforded the same consideration as the title of a bill.”
State v. Cooley, 765 P.2d 1327 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “015(2)(1), such captions cannot change the meaning of the enactments, RCW 1.08.015(2). The next question is whether, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 13.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.08.015(2)(i) — 2 cases
Kevin Miller, V State Of Wa, Dept. Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 1.08.015 governs the code reviser’s duties and provides in relevant part that, Subject to such general policies as may be promulgated by the committee and to the general supervision of the committee, the reviser shall: .”
State Of Washington v. J.j., 3/28/99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.08.015(2)(k) — 7 cases
State v. Cordero, 284 P.3d 773 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “010, which was amended by Laws of 2011, chapter 336, section 369 to make the language gender neutral and whose definitions have been alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k). In closing argument, for example, the prosecutor stated, “I think we’ve proven each of those parts of…”
Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 334 P.3d 14 (Wash. 2014). “1 The definitions in this section were recently alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k). Laws of 2013, ch. 148, §§ 1, 3.”
State v. J.H.-M., 566 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2025). “RCW 1.08.015(2)(k). Current session law still codifies the definition for “sexually explicit conduct” in subsection (4).”
Amanda Orse (pellanda) v. Ryan Schwarder (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Christelle Cunningham v. State Of Wa., Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.08.015(2)(l) — 2 cases
Jay Gerow, V Wa State Gambling Comm (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Manfred Uwe Bartz v. Burlington N. Santa Fe (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.08.015(2)(m) — 4 cases
Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 682 P.2d 869 (Wash. 1984). “" Senate Journal, supra at 89. [4] The veto of Governor Spellman was of an entire section and was valid.”
State v. Reis, 351 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2015). “If not deleted, the code reviser, pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(m), would have taken out such “manifestly obsolete” references.”
State v. Reis, 322 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 1.08.015(2) provides that the code reviser shall edit and revise laws enacted by the legislature, “to the extent deemed necessary or desirable by the reviser and without changing the meaning of any such law, in the following respects only:.”
State Of Washington v. William Michael Reis (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.