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

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (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 court shall sit in panels of three judges and decisions shall be rendered by not less than a majority of the panel. In the determination of causes all decisions of the court shall be given in writing and the grounds of the decisions shall be stated. All decisions of the court having precedential value shall be published as opinions of the court. Each panel shall determine whether a decision of the court has sufficient precedential value to be published as an opinion of the court. Decisions determined not to have precedential value shall not be published. Judges of the respective divisions may sit in other divisions, causes may be transferred between divisions, and the court may hold sessions in cities, as provided by rule.
The court may establish rules supplementary to and not in conflict with rules of the supreme court.
[ 2023 c 184 s 1; 2007 c 34 s 1; 1987 c 43 s 1; 1984 c 258 s 91; 1971 c 41 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 221 s 4.]

Notes:

Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8,705 cases (2,852 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: State v. Lawler, 374 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lawler, 374 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “*291 ¶50 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.”
State Of Washington v. Joshua J. Clark, 381 P.3d 198 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Clark A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder having no precedential value shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.…”
State v. Foster, 140 Wash. App. 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “*278 ¶24 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Bridgewater and Hunt, JJ.”
State v. Anderson, 153 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “f32 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Hunt, J., concurs.”
State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax, 193 Wash. App. 667 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “A majority of the panel having determined that only the forgoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder having no precedential value shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. II.…”
State v. Anderson, 220 P.3d 1273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 32 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. We concur: HUNT and…”
State of Washington v. Kevin Arther Peters, 455 P.3d 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder having no precedential value shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. IV. THE…”
In re the Det. of M.K., 279 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶16 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Worswick, C.”
State v. Gaines, 380 P.3d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Thus, taking the instructions as a whole, the trial court instructed the jury to consider only the evidence admitted at trial, and to disregard their deliberations that had been tainted by extrinsic information.”
Gander v. Yeager, 274 P.3d 393 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Because they failed to present any authority or persuasive arguments for reversing the superior court’s denial of their request for attorney fees, we affirm the superior court and dismiss their appeal. ¶28 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion…”
State v. Motter, 162 P.3d 1190 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “In the published portion of this opinion, we affirm Motter's community custody conditions.”
State v. Grantham, 932 P.2d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. WOOD, J. Pro Tem.”
Show all 8,705 citing cases →
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.