Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.06
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030 (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 administration and procedures of the court shall be as provided by rules of the supreme court. The court shall be vested with all power and authority, not inconsistent with said rules, necessary to carry into complete execution all of its judgments, decrees and determinations in all matters within its jurisdiction, according to the rules and principles of the common law and the Constitution and laws of this state.
For the prompt and orderly administration of justice, the supreme court may (1) transfer to the appropriate division of the court for decision a case or appeal pending before the supreme court; or (2) transfer to the supreme court for decision a case or appeal pending in a division of the court.
Subject to the provisions of this section, the court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases except:
(a) cases of quo warranto, prohibition, injunction or mandamus directed to state officials;
(b) criminal cases where the death penalty has been decreed;
(c) cases where the validity of all or any portion of a statute, ordinance, tax, impost, assessment or toll is drawn into question on the grounds of repugnancy to the Constitution of the United States or of the state of Washington, or to a statute or treaty of the United States, and the superior court has held against its validity;
(d) cases involving fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination; and
(e) cases involving substantive issues on which there is a direct conflict among prevailing decisions of panels of the court or between decisions of the supreme court;
all of which shall be appealed directly to the supreme court: PROVIDED, That whenever a majority of the court before which an appeal is pending, but before a hearing thereon, is in doubt as to whether such appeal is within the categories set forth in subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the cause shall be certified to the supreme court for such determination.
The appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals does 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.
The court shall have appellate jurisdiction over review of final decisions of administrative agencies certified by the superior court pursuant to RCW 34.05.518.
Appeals from the court to the supreme court shall be only at the discretion of the supreme court upon the filing of a petition for review. No case, appeal or petition for a writ filed in the supreme court or the court shall be dismissed for the reason that it was not filed in the proper court, but it shall be transferred to the proper court.
[ 1980 c 76 s 3; 1979 c 102 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 221 s 3.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. Titles 1 and 4 RAP, RAP 18.22.
Severability—1979 c 102: See note following RCW 3.66.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 221 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: In re the Pers. Restraint of Turay, 150 Wash. 2d 71 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Pers. Restraint of Turay, 150 Wash. 2d 71 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 6× “In 1969, the legislature enacted RCW 2.06.030. This statute generally implements the constitutional provision by directing that “the court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases except” and then lists types of cases not relevant here.”
Banowsky v. Backstrom, 445 P.3d 543 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 10× “IV, §§ 10, 30; RCW 2.06.030. The question m Johnson was whether No.”
In Re Turay, 74 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 6× “In 1969, the legislature enacted RCW 2.06.030. This statute generally implements the constitutional provision by directing that "the court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases except" and then lists types of cases not relevant here.”
Matter of Johnson, 933 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 5× “Johnson then filed his second PRP on May 17, 1995, in which he again argued his offender score should have been 1, this time citing Sietz.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Johnson, 131 Wash. 2d 558 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 5× “Johnson then filed his second PRP on May 17, 1995, in which he again argued his offender score should have been 1, this time citing Seitz.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue, 166 P.3d 667 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “In March 2006 the court granted Qwest's cross motion for summary judgment and denied the City's motion to dismiss.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue, 161 Wash. 2d 353 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “In March 2006 the court granted Qwest’s cross motion for summary judgment and denied the City’s motion to dismiss. The City filed a motion for reconsideration on April 7, 2006, which the court denied.”
Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 770 P.2d 182 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “Finding this case to present "urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination," the Court of Appeals certified the matter to this court under RCW 2.06.030(d). This case raises two issues.”
State v. Russell, 882 P.2d 747 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “Russell appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified his appeal to this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.030. Before examining the issues presented, we will briefly outline the facts pertinent to each count.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 949 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 6× “Commissioner Weathersby granted that motion, finding that under RCW 2.06.030 the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear civil matters where the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wash. 2d 141 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 6× “Commissioner Weathersby granted that motion, finding that under RCW 2.06.030 the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear civil matters where the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Perkins, 19 P.3d 1027 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “140 had the case been transferred. 6 Holmes simply did not address the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a case over which it did not have jurisdiction on a basis that would have been unavailable to the Supreme *266 Court had the case been transferred.”
Show all 221 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(2) — 4 cases
City of Spokane v. Fischer, 754 P.2d 1241 (Wash. 1988).
State v. Long, 705 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1985).
Psaty v. Psaty, 789 P.2d 96 (Wash. 1990).
In Re Hjp, 789 P.2d 96 (Wash. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(2)(d) — 2 cases
Witters v. Comm'n for the Blind, 689 P.2d 53 (Wash. 1984).
State v. Chavez, 761 P.2d 607 (Wash. 1988).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(a) — 1 case
Luther v. Ray, 588 P.2d 1188 (Wash. 1979).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(b) — 1 case
Harris by & Through Ramseyer v. Blodgett, 853 F. Supp. 1239 (W.D. Wash. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(c) — 6 cases
Willoughby v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 147 Wash. 2d 725 (Wash. 2002).
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 949 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1998). “Commissioner Weathersby granted that motion, finding that under RCW 2.06.030 the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear civil matters where the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wash. 2d 141 (Wash. 1998). “Commissioner Weathersby granted that motion, finding that under RCW 2.06.030 the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear civil matters where the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
State v. Hegge, 574 P.2d 386 (Wash. 1978).
Ass'n of Washington Stevedoring Companies v. Dep't of Revenue, 559 P.2d 997 (Wash. 1977).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(d) — 40 cases
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue, 166 P.3d 667 (Wash. 2007). “In March 2006 the court granted Qwest's cross motion for summary judgment and denied the City's motion to dismiss.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue, 161 Wash. 2d 353 (Wash. 2007). “In March 2006 the court granted Qwest’s cross motion for summary judgment and denied the City’s motion to dismiss. The City filed a motion for reconsideration on April 7, 2006, which the court denied.”
Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 770 P.2d 182 (Wash. 1989). “Finding this case to present "urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination," the Court of Appeals certified the matter to this court under RCW 2.06.030(d). This case raises two issues.”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987).
State v. Fjermestad, 791 P.2d 897 (Wash. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.030(e) — 8 cases
In re Pers. Restraint of Arnold, 410 P.3d 1133 (Wash. 2018).
Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 588 P.2d 1346 (Wash. 1979).
State v. Markle, 823 P.2d 1101 (Wash. 1992).
State v. Swindell, 607 P.2d 852 (Wash. 1980).
Lundgren v. Whitney's Inc., 614 P.2d 1272 (Wash. 1980).
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.