Wash. Rev. Code » Title 1 · Chapter 1.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 1.16.080 (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) The term "person" may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.
(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms "association," "unincorporated association," and "person, firm, or corporation" or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.
[ 1996 c 231 s 1; 1891 c 23 s 1, part; Code 1881 s 964; 1857 p 46 s 1; 1854 p 99 s 134; RRS s 146.]

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:".
Criminal proceedings, person defined: RCW 9A.04.110.
Declaratory judgments, person defined: RCW 7.24.130.
Eminent domain by cities, person defined: RCW 8.12.020.
Notice to alien property custodian, person defined: RCW 4.28.340.
Wrongful death, person defined: RCW 4.20.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 467 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 467 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 8× “¶41 The lead opinion ignores the fact that adopting its narrow definition of “person” would require overruling the only other case that has considered whether the definition of “person” from RCW 1.16.080 applies to RCW 4.24.510. See Gontmakher v.”
Brazier Forest Prods., Inc. v. N. Transp., Inc., 724 P.2d 970 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 8× “RCW 1.16.080 *595 provides: "The term `person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.”
Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, 479 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 3× “In RCW 1.16.080, 8 Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC No.”
Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue, 85 P.3d 926 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “The Gontmakhers, on the other hand, argue that the plain meaning of "person" is limited to citizens with rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 349 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “¶17 Yet because RCW 1.16.080 states that “person” may be construed to include the listed entities as well as an individual, our Supreme Court has recognized that it “only allows, but does not require such a construction.”
Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 144 Wash. App. 312 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “” RCW 1.16.080 defines “person” for purposes of the entire Revised Code of *324 Washington.”
Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue, 120 Wash. App. 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The legislature is presumed to know the general definition of “person” under RCW 1.16.080. If the legislature intended to employ a limited definition of “person,” the normal and expected practice would be for it to expressly do so.”
Segaline v. State, Dept. of L&i, 182 P.3d 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “" RCW 1.16.080 defines "person" for purposes of the entire Revised Code of Washington.”
McGinnis v. State, 99 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2004). “Employees further argue that the definition of "employer" in the IWA includes "persons" and that the IWA applies to the State because the definition of "person" under RCW 1.16.080 includes the State. Employees claim that the purpose of the IWA is to protect all employees in the…”
McGinnis v. State, 152 Wash. 2d 639 (Wash. 2004). “Employees further argue that the definition of “employer” in the IWA includes “persons” and that the IWA applies to the State because the definition of “person” under RCW 1.16.080 includes the State. Employees claim that the purpose of the IWA is to protect all employees in the…”
State v. Jeffries, 709 P.2d 819 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “1 RCW 1.16.080 defines "person" for purposes of the entire code.”
Washington State Liquor Control Bd. v. Washington State Pers. Bd., 561 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1977). “While the term "person", when used in a statute, may include a state agency (RCW 1.16.080), it is significant that the legislature did not use the words "agency", "person", or "party" interchangeably in the administrative procedures act, but rather seemed to attach different…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 1.16.080(1) — 17 cases
Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 467 (Wash. 2010). “¶41 The lead opinion ignores the fact that adopting its narrow definition of “person” would require overruling the only other case that has considered whether the definition of “person” from RCW 1.16.080 applies to RCW 4.24.510. See Gontmakher v.”
Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, 479 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2021). “In RCW 1.16.080, 8 Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC No.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 349 P.3d 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “¶17 Yet because RCW 1.16.080 states that “person” may be construed to include the listed entities as well as an individual, our Supreme Court has recognized that it “only allows, but does not require such a construction.”
Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue, 85 P.3d 926 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The Gontmakhers, on the other hand, argue that the plain meaning of "person" is limited to citizens with rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 5 of the Washington State Constitution.”
Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue, 120 Wash. App. 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The legislature is presumed to know the general definition of “person” under RCW 1.16.080. If the legislature intended to employ a limited definition of “person,” the normal and expected practice would be for it to expressly do so.”
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.