Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.27.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In every county a superior court judge as designated by a majority of the judges shall be available to serve as a special inquiry judge to hear evidence concerning criminal activity and corruption.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 67 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1972–2014 · leading case: State v. Madry, 504 P.2d 1156 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Madry, 504 P.2d 1156 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “The superior court judges’ investigation did not follow the format of a “special inquiry judge” procedure such as is provided for in RCW 10.27.050. 3 It had the same practical effect as would such “special inquiry judge” procedure.”
State v. Reeder, 330 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “rporation counsel or city attorney has reason to suspect crime or corruption, within the jurisdiction of such attorney, and there is reason to believe that there are persons who may be able to give material testimony or provide material evidence concerning such suspected crime…”
State v. Neslund, 690 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.27.050. The special inquiry judge does not have the power to initiate the special inquiry.”
State v. Manning, 543 P.2d 632 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “020 (7); RCW 10.27.050. The principal section of chapter 10.”
State Of Washington v. Michael Reeder (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “170 states, When any public attorney, corporation counsel or city attorney has reason to suspect crime or corruption, within the jurisdiction of such attorney, and there is reason to believe that there are persons who may be able to give material testimony or provide material…”
In re Special Inquiry Judge, 899 P.2d 800 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “RCW 10.27.050. We reverse. A witness was subpoenaed to appear before a special inquiry judge in February 1994.”
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.