Wash. Rev. Code » Title 1 · Chapter 1.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 1.12.025 (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) If at any session of the legislature there are enacted two or more acts amending the same section of the session laws or of the official code, each amendment without reference to the others, each act shall be given effect to the extent that the amendments do not conflict in purpose, otherwise the act last filed in the office of the secretary of state in point of time, shall control: PROVIDED, That if one or more special sessions of the same legislature shall follow any regular session, this rule of construction shall apply to the laws enacted at either, both, any, or all of such sessions.
(2) If a section of the session laws or of the official code is amended without reference to another amendment of the same section, the code reviser, in consultation with the statute law committee, may publish the section in the official code with all amendments incorporated therein. The publication of the section under this subsection shall occur only if the statute law committee determines that the amendments do not conflict in purpose or effect. Sections so published constitute prima facie evidence of the law but shall not be construed as changing the meaning of any such law.
The code reviser, in consultation with the statute law committee, may decodify a section of the official code which was repealed without reference to an amendment to the section. The decodification of the section shall occur only if the statute law committee determines that the decodification does not conflict with the purpose of the amendment. Any decision of the code reviser, in consultation with the statute law committee, to incorporate amendments in the same section or to decodify a section which was both repealed and amended in the same session shall be clearly noted in the revised code of Washington.
If any conflict arises in the interpretation of a section published or decodified under this subsection, the session law sections shall control.
[ 1983 c 244 s 1; 1980 c 87 s 2; 1974 ex.s. c 87 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 240 s 1; 1955 c 162 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1969–2017 · leading case: State v. Taylor, 649 P.2d 633 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Taylor, 649 P.2d 633 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 3× “Both parties and the Court of Appeals rely on RCW 1.12.025 to resolve the dispute concerning the relationship of RCW 46.”
State v. King, 111 Wash. App. 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The State argued that RCW 1.12.025 authorized the court to give effect to the intent of the legislature rather than apply the statute as written.”
Copeland Lumber Co. v. Wilkins, 454 P.2d 821 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 6× “RCW 1.12.025 reads as follows: If at any session of the legislature there are enacted two or more acts amending the same section of the session laws or of the official code, each act shall be given effect to the extent that the amendments do not conflict in purpose, otherwise…”
Campbell v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 305 Educ. L. Rep. 540 (Wash. 2014). “Pro Tem., concur. RCW 50.20.050 was amended twice in 2009.”
Shanlian v. Faulk, 843 P.2d 535 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Thus, Shanlian's second assignment of error fails. The third issue to be determined is whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the penalty imposed by the Department.”
Washington State Repub. Party v. Logan, 377 F. Supp. 2d 907 (W.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “Under statutory rules of construction in Wash. Rev.Code § 1.12.025, amended statute Wash.”
State v. Jenkins, 847 P.2d 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Second, Gebhardt is inapposite to the relationship between chapter 271 and chapters 99, 405, and 1 because Gebhardt was decided prior to the adoption of RCW 1.12.025(1), which states in relevant part: If at any session of the legislature there are enacted two or more acts…”
West Valley Land Co. v. Nob Hill Water Ass'n, 729 P.2d 42 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to the directive of RCW 1.12.025, we give effect to each act to the extent that the amendments do not conflict in purpose.”
Campbell v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 297 P.3d 757 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Under RCW 1.12.025, each amendment is given effect to the extent that they do not conflict with each other.”
In Re the Adoption of Henderson, 644 P.2d 1178 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 1.12.025 provides that if two acts amending the same statutory section are enacted during the same session without reference to the other, each act shall be given effect to the extent that the amendments do not conflict in purpose, otherwise the act last filed in the office…”
State v. King, 45 P.3d 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “The State argued that RCW 1.12.025 authorized the court to give effect to the intent of the legislature rather than apply the statute as written.”
State v. Sheppard, 763 P.2d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Under such circumstances, each act shall be given effect to the extent that the amendments do not conflict in purpose, otherwise the act last filed in the office of the secretary of state in point of time shall control.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.12.025(1) — 3 cases
Shanlian v. Faulk, 843 P.2d 535 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “Thus, Shanlian's second assignment of error fails. The third issue to be determined is whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the penalty imposed by the Department.”
State v. Jenkins, 847 P.2d 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Second, Gebhardt is inapposite to the relationship between chapter 271 and chapters 99, 405, and 1 because Gebhardt was decided prior to the adoption of RCW 1.12.025(1), which states in relevant part: If at any session of the legislature there are enacted two or more acts…”
State of Washington v. Cassie Kay Robertson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.12.025(2) — 1 case
State v. Kern, 780 P.2d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
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.