Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.99
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The purpose of this chapter is to recognize the importance of domestic violence as a serious crime against society and to assure the victim of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse which the law and those who enforce the law can provide. The legislature finds that the existing criminal statutes are adequate to provide protection for victims of domestic violence. However, previous societal attitudes have been reflected in policies and practices of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors which have resulted in differing treatment of crimes occurring between cohabitants and of the same crimes occurring between strangers. Only recently has public perception of the serious consequences of domestic violence to society and to the victims led to the recognition of the necessity for early intervention by law enforcement agencies. It is the intent of the legislature that the official response to cases of domestic violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and shall communicate the attitude that violent behavior is not excused or tolerated. Furthermore, it is the intent of the legislature that criminal laws be enforced without regard to whether the persons involved are or were married, cohabiting, or involved in a relationship.
[ 1979 ex.s. c 105 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: State v. Ward, 148 Wash. 2d 803 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ward, 148 Wash. 2d 803 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 6× “” RCW 10.99.010. One way the legislature has seen fit to protect victims of domestic violence is to enhance the penalty for violation of a no-contact order when the violation is based on an assault rather than on nonassaultive conduct.”
State v. Ward, 64 P.3d 640 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 6× “" RCW 10.99.010. One way the legislature has seen fit to protect victims of domestic violence is to enhance the penalty for violation of a no-contact order when the violation is based on an assault rather than on nonassaultive conduct.”
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 8× “The State does not cite authority for this conclusion, but proceeds to make a public policy argument that an independently authorized no-contact order can last longer than the defendant's sentence.”
Roy v. City of Everett, 823 P.2d 1084 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 12× “When RCW 10.99.010 and 10.99.070 are read together, the latter grants immunity only for conduct in the course of an arrest or other on the scene action such as entering a home to break up a fight.”
Donaldson v. City of Seattle, 831 P.2d 1098 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “This conclusion is supported by the statement of intent in RCW 10.99.010 which reads in pertinent part: The purpose of this chapter is to recognize the importance of domestic violence as a serious crime against society and to assure the victim of domestic violence the maximum…”
State v. Schultz, 48 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “" RCW 10.99.010. Schultz also maintains that nullification of the pretrial no-contact order is necessitated simply by the existence of RCW 10.”
Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., 193 P.3d 128 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “030(6)(a), and has also expanded the definition of domestic violence to include violence between nonmarried individuals and individuals in "dating relationship[s].”
Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., 165 Wash. 2d 200 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “” RCW 10.99.010. The legislature later expanded the DVA to require the mandatory arrest of domestic violence perpetrators, RCW 10.”
State v. Bunker, 169 Wash. 2d 571 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.99.010. Criminalizing a visit to a friend but decriminalizing blatant harassment flies in the face of this intent and is absurd.”
State v. Bunker, 238 P.3d 487 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.99.010. Criminalizing a visit to a friend but decriminalizing blatant harassment flies in the face of this intent and is absurd.”
State v. Schultz, 170 Wash. 2d 746 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 10.99.010. The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[p]olice officers responding to a domestic violence report have a duty to ensure the present and continued safety and well-being of the occupants.”
City of Tacoma v. State, 816 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “RCW 10.99.010. Similarly, the "expansion of advice given to victims" does not constitute a new program or increased level of service.”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.010(1) — 2 cases
State v. Snapp, 82 P.3d 252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Snapp, 82 P.3d 252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
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.