Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 1.12.050 (2026)
Number and gender
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Words importing the singular number may also be applied to the plural of persons and things; words importing the plural may be applied to the singular; and words importing the masculine gender may be extended to females also.
[1891 c 23 s 1, part; Code 1881 ss 756, 965, 1920; 1877 p 153 s 761; 1857 p 45 s 1; 1854 p 99 s 135 and p 221 s 502; RRS s 148.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: 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:".
Probate, number and gender: RCW 11.02.005.
Statutes in gender-neutral terms: RCW 44.04.210.
Wrongful death, number and gender: RCW 4.20.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: State v. Welty, 726 P.2d 472 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Welty, 726 P.2d 472 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “See RCW 1.12.050; 2A C. Sands, Statutory Construction § 47.”
State Of Washington v. Todd Richard Marjama, Jr., 473 P.3d 1246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “535(3)(h)(ii) necessarily includes the singular term “child.” In addition, such an interpretation is consistent with the legislature’s intent.”
Bricker v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 164 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “L&I responds that similar language is found in RCW 1.12.050, which provides in part that “words importing the plural may be applied to the singular,” and that the legislature intended this prin *23 ciple to apply to the PRA without expressly including it therein.”
State v. Veazie, 98 P.3d 100 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “" RCW 1.12.050. Standard of Review. The primary issue is one of statutory construction.”
Hinton v. Johnson, 942 P.2d 1061 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “2d 1002 (1986); see also RCW 1.12.050 ("[w]ords importing the singular number may also be applied to the plural of persons and things; words importing the plural may be applied to the singular”).”
Rabanco Ltd. v. King Cnty., 125 Wash. App. 794 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Because statutes must be interpreted such that no portion is rendered meaningless or superfluous, J.”
Rabanco Ltd. v. King Cnty., 106 P.3d 802 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Because statutes must be interpreted such that no portion is rendered meaningless or superfluous, J.”
Bricker v. State, Dept. of Labor & Indus., 262 P.3d 121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “L & I responds that similar language is found in RCW 1.12.050, which provides in part that "words importing the plural may be applied to the singular," and that the legislature intended this principle to apply to the PRA without expressly including it therein.”
State v. Veazie, 123 Wash. App. 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “” RCW 1.12.050. Standard of Review. The primary issue is one of statutory construction.”
Ahmet Hopovac v. State of Washington, 391 P.3d 570 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “A motel might post a placard that declares: “Please no pets.”
K.m.p., Et Ano. v. Big Bros. Big Sisters Of Puget Sound (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Further, we do not derive the legislature’s intent from the statute’s words alone because we also consider “the context of the entire act as well as any ‘related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.”
Jonathan D. Clausen v. WBL SPO I, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Finally, Clausen argues in his reply brief that accepting WBL’s interpretation would improperly treat the term “borrower” as singular, contrary to RCW 1.12.050, which provides that statutory terms may be construed as plural unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.”
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.