Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 1.12.010 (2026)

Code to be liberally construed

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction.

[1891 c 23 s 1, part; Code 1881 ss 758, 1686; 1877 p 153 s 763; 1854 p 221 s 504; RRS s 144.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: (1) This section is a part of 1891 c 23 s 1. The introductory phrase of that section provides: "The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:"

(2) This section was originally section 504 of the 1854 statute entitled "An act to regulate the practice and proceedings in civil actions." Section 504 of the 1854 statute reads as follows: "The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction." Identical language appears in Code of 1881 s 1686 relating to probate, and again in Code of 1881 s 758, being part of "An act to regulate the practice and proceedings in civil actions" except that in the latter instance the 1881 codifier changed the words "this act" to read "this code."

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Gerean v. Martin-Joven, 108 Wash. App. 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gerean v. Martin-Joven, 108 Wash. App. 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Gerean reasons that RCW 1.12.010 1 requires that statutes be liberally construed.”

Gerean v. Martin-Joven, 33 P.3d 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Gerean reasons that RCW 1.12.010 [1] requires that statutes be liberally construed.”

Stikes Woods Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Lacey, 880 P.2d 25 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court is authorized by RCW 1.12.010 4 to liberally construe the provisions of the code.”

State v. Goss, 378 P.3d 154 (Wash. 2016). “Requiring the State to allege the victim was at least 12 years old would not further the announced legislative purpose of protecting “the children of Washington from sexual abuse.”

Wichert v. Cardwell, 812 P.2d 858 (Wash. 1991). “The 1854 act was the entire civil practice act, 102 pages, and provided that it "shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction.”

Sheldon v. Fettig, 919 P.2d 1209 (Wash. 1996). “This is consistent with our procedural rules in (1) RCW 1.12.010, which mandates that "[t]he provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction"; and (2) CR 1, which states the rules "shall be construed to secure the…”

Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wash. 2d 601 (Wash. 1996). “This is consistent with our procedural rules in (1) RCW 1.12.010, which mandates that "[t]he provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction”; and (2) CR 1, which states the rules "shall be construed to secure the…”

GESA Fed. Credit Union v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 713 P.2d 728 (Wash. 1986). “See Matcha, at 381; RCW 1.12.010. *256 Where a party, in exercising its redemption right, commits a technical but harmless procedural error, a forfeiture requiremént is not only unjust, but inconsistent with the very purpose of the statute.”

Mjd Props., Llc, Resp. v. Jeffrey Haley, App., 358 P.3d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “17 RCW 1.12.010. 18 22 Wash. 419, 425 , 61 P.”

State Of Washington v. J.k.t., 455 P.3d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 1.12.010. Where a statute does not define a term, we may look to dictionary definitions to assist in determining the plain meaning of a statute.”

State v. Goss (Wash. 2016). “Requiring the State to allege the victim was at least 12 years old would not further the announced legislative purpose of protecting "the children of Washington from sexual abuse.”

Jane Koler/land Use & Prop. Law, Pllc, Apps V. City Of Black Diamond, Et Ano., Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “None of the legal services agreements signed by Morris, Kenyon Disend, Koler, Glenn, or Bremner provided for the payment of a salary or set a term consistent 3 The City cites to BDMC §§ 1.12.010(C) (giving “the city attorney” discretion to treat code violations as civil…”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.12.010(C) — 1 case

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.