Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.160 (2026)

Personal service of process outside state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Personal service of any process in an action under this chapter may be made upon any person outside the state if such person has engaged in conduct in violation of this chapter which has had the impact in this state which this chapter reprehends. Such persons shall be deemed to have thereby submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state within the meaning of RCW 4.28.180 and 4.28.185.
[ 1961 c 216 s 16.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 1035 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 375 P.3d 1035 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶5 The State asserted jurisdiction pursuant to the long-arm provision of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.160. The State also asserted that venue is proper in King County in part because the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ activities were intended to, and…”
State v. AU Optronics Corp., 180 Wash. App. 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Jurisdiction exists pursuant to RCW 19.86.160. 6. Venue is proper in King County because the Plaintiff resides therein; a significant portion of the acts giving rise to this action occurred in King County; the Defendants and their co-conspirators [sic] activities were intended…”
State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 501 P.2d 290 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 2× “The state claims jurisdiction under the long-arm provision in the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.160, which provides: Personal service of any process in an action under this chapter may be made upon any person outside the state if such person has engaged in conduct in…”
State v. LG Elec., Inc., 185 Wash. App. 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The Companies limit their jurisdictional challenge to the State’s alleged attempt to violate due process. ¶24 A framework for analyzing whether Washington courts may exercise personal jurisdiction consistent with the due process clause — derived from certain United States…”
Huebner v. Sales Promotion, Inc., 684 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “Jones, supra; RCW 19.86.160. Frank and Jim contend that the trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil to exercise personal jurisdiction over them, citing Stanley Works v.”
Laura Daniels, V George Sommers (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “We conclude that for purposes of a CR 12(b)(2) motion, (1) the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Sommers and Swanson under RCW 19.86.160, the CPA’s long arm provision, for Daniels’ and Halverson’s claims that Sommers and Swanson violated the CPA by acting as…”
State Of Washington, App. v. Lg Display Co., Ltd., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Jurisdiction exists pursuant to RCW 19.86.160. 6. Venue is proper in King County because the Plaintiff resides therein; a significant portion of the acts giving rise to this action occurred in King County; the Defendants and their co conspirators [sic] activities were intended…”
Handley v. Franchise Mktg. Servs., Inc., 510 P.2d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “2d 290 (1972), the defendant contested personal jurisdiction which the state claimed under the consumer protection act, RCW 19.86.160. The court commented that the performance of an unfair trade practice in Washington, though by a foreign corporation which had no agents,…”
State v. LG Elecs., Inc. (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “91391-9 The State asserted jurisdiction pursuant to the long-arm provision of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.160. The State also asserted that venue is proper in King County in part because the Defendants' and their co-conspirators' activities were intended…”
State Of Washington v. Lg Elec., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “B The Attorney General asserts specific personal jurisdiction over the Companies pursuant to RCW 19.86.160—the long-arm provision of the CPA: 19 The effect of our decision is not to mandate that affidavits or declarations submitted in support of a motion to dismiss be henceforth…”
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.