Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.95
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.95.010 (2026)

Court rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No rule promulgated by the supreme court of Washington pursuant to RCW 2.04.190 and 2.04.200, now or in the future, shall be construed to supersede or alter any of the provisions of this chapter.
[ 1981 c 138 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1984–1996 · leading case: State v. Campbell, 691 P.2d 929 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Campbell, 691 P.2d 929 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “§§ 16-3-20 through -50 (Law Co-op. 1983) S.D.”
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988). “1987)); Washington (see Wash. Rev. Code §§ 10.95.010 — 10.95.900 (1987)); Wyoming (see Wyo.”
State v. Bartholomew, 710 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “See RCW 10.95.010. Without express statutory authority to the contrary, the prosecution should have the discretion to amend its pleadings in death penalty cases remanded due to error occurring in the sentencing phase.”
State v. Clark, 129 Wash. 2d 805 (Wash. 1996). “Relying on the agreed arrangement for service, the State left the notice in the designated box in a restricted area in the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Public Defender staff retrieved it, took it to the Public Defender Office, stamped it received, and left it in the appropriate…”
State v. Clark, 920 P.2d 187 (Wash. 1996). “Relying on the agreed arrangement for service, the State left the notice in the designated box in a restricted area in the Prosecutor's Office, and the Public Defender staff retrieved it, took it to the Public Defender Office, stamped it received, and left it in the appropriate…”
State v. Cronin, 923 P.2d 694 (Wash. 1996). “We do not quarrel with that assertion, noting only, as we did in Clark, that our conclusion that CR 5 governs the manner of service of the notice of special proceeding does not bring CR 5 into collision with 10.”
State v. Cronin, 923 P.2d 694 (Wash. 1996). “We do not quarrel with that assertion, noting only, as we did in Clark, that our conclusion that CR 5 governs the manner of service of the notice of special proceeding does not bring CR 5 into collision with 10.”
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.