Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.04.010 (2026)

Jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus and quo warranto and mandamus as to all state officers, and appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings excepting that its appellate jurisdiction shall not extend to civil actions at law for the recovery of money or personal property when the original amount in controversy or the value of the property does not exceed the sum of two hundred dollars, unless the action involves the legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine, or the validity of a statute. The supreme court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, and all other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction. Each of the judges shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the state, upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and may make such writs returnable before himself or herself, or before the supreme court, or before any superior court of the state, or any judge thereof.
[ 2011 c 336 s 8; 1890 p 322 s 6; RRS s 1.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. RAP 4.2, 4.3, 18.22; Titles 2 and 16 RAP.
Jurisdiction of supreme court: State Constitution Art. 4 s 4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1989–2019 · leading case: Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002). · cites it 2× “VI, § 1; Wash. Rev. Code § 2.04.010 (1994); W. Va.”
Lee v. State, 374 P.3d 157 (Wash. 2016). “IV, § 4; RCW 2.04.010. The State agrees with opponents that the case is justiciable, “especially in light of the issues of substantial public interest” and the “public officials’ need for immediate resolution.”
State v. Buchanan, 978 P.2d 1070 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 2.04.010. Alternatively, the State asks to supplement the record with documents showing that the Nooksack Indian Tribe has previously taken the position that it was not a party to the treaty.”
State v. Buchanan, 978 P.2d 1070 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 2.04.010. Alternatively, the State asks to supplement the *197 record with documents showing that the Nooksack Indian Tribe has previously taken the position that it was not a party to the treaty.”
Davidson v. Thomas, 780 P.2d 910 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “080(1) 1 and King County Code § 2.04.010 2 in actions against the County.”
City Of Seattle, Appellant/cr-respondent v. S. Michael Kunath, Respondent/cr-appellant, 444 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “47 Terms in a statute are read with their common and ordinary meaning, absent ambiguity or a statutory definition.48 A dictionary can supply an undefined term’s ordinary meaning.”
Lee v. State (Wash. 2016). “IV,§ 4; RCW 2.04.010. The State agrees with opponents that the case is justiciable, "especially in light of the issues of substantial public interest" and the "public officials' need for immediate resolution.”
Nicholas E. Boone v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “See also RCW 2.04.010. 2 No. 76611-2/3 changed the signs to read "WHEN FLASHING.”
In Re Writ Of Mandamus Of Carl Alonzo Brooks v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “For the purpose of service of summons on King County under provisions of RCW 4.”
Lee v. State (Wash. 2016). “IV,§ 4; RCW 2.04.010. The State agrees with opponents that the case is justiciable, "especially in light of the issues of substantial public interest" and the "public officials' need for immediate resolution.”
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.