Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.08.180 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A case in the superior court of any county may be tried by a judge pro tempore, who must be either: (1) A member of the bar, agreed upon in writing by the parties litigant, or their attorneys of record, approved by the court, and sworn to try the case; or (2) pursuant to supreme court rule, any sitting elected judge. Any action in the trial of such cause shall have the same effect as if it was made by a judge of such court. However, if a previously elected judge of the superior court retires leaving a pending case in which the judge has made discretionary rulings, the judge is entitled to hear the pending case as a judge pro tempore without any written agreement.
A judge pro tempore shall, before entering upon his or her duties in any cause, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of judge pro tempore in the cause wherein . . . . . . is plaintiff and . . . . . . defendant, according to the best of my ability."
A judge pro tempore who is a practicing attorney or who is a retired judge of a court of the state of Washington, shall receive a compensation of one-two hundred fiftieth of the annual salary of a superior court judge for each day engaged in said trial, to be paid in the same manner as the salary of the superior judge. A judge who is an active full-time judge of a court of the state of Washington shall receive no compensation as judge pro tempore. A judge who is an active part-time judge of a court of the state of Washington may receive compensation as a judge pro tempore only when sitting as a judge pro tempore during time for which he or she is not compensated as a part-time judge. A retired justice or judge may decline to accept compensation.
[ 2023 c 24 s 1; 2005 c 142 s 1; 2003 c 247 s 1; 2002 c 137 s 1; 1987 c 73 s 1; 1971 c 81 s 6; 1967 c 149 s 1; 1890 p 343 s 11; RRS s 40.]

Notes:

Contingent effective date—1987 c 73: "This act shall take effect January 1, 1988, if the proposed amendment to Article IV, section 7 of the state Constitution, allowing retiring judges to hear pending cases, is validly submitted to and is approved and ratified by the voters at a general election held in November, 1987. If the proposed amendment is not so approved and ratified, this act shall be null and void in its entirety." [ 1987 c 73 s 2.] Amendment 80 of the state Constitution, amending Article IV, section 7, was approved by the voters November 3, 1987.
Judges pro tempore: State Constitution Art. 4 s 7.
appointments: RCW 2.56.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2021 · leading case: State v. Belgarde, 837 P.2d 599 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Belgarde, 837 P.2d 599 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 4× “The record does not reveal when it was decided Judge Deierlein, rather than the newly elected Skagit County judge, would preside over the trial.”
In Re the Marriage of Dalthorp, 598 P.2d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 7× “By agreement of the parties and counsel duly executed pursuant to RCW 2.08.180, the case was tried by Paul Boyle sitting as judge pro tempore.”
Jenkins v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 257 P.3d 522 (Wash. 2011). “dependent as to Jenkins was entered by a pro tempore judge without Jenkins’ consent. A case in superior court may be tried by a judge pro tempore only if, among other conditions, the parties or their attorneys of record have consented in writing or in open court to trial before…”
In Re Dependency of KNJ, 257 P.3d 522 (Wash. 2011). “A case in superior court may be tried by a judge pro tempore only if, among other conditions, the parties or their attorneys of record have consented in writing or in open court to trial before the judge pro tempore.”
Barrett-Smith v. Barrett-Smith, 38 P.3d 1030 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Although each asserts different grounds, both parties also challenge the authority of the judge pro tempore and request that the new trial be held before a duly-elected judge of the Pierce County Superior Court.”
Burton v. Ascol, 715 P.2d 110 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 3× “Allied Fidelity further contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Allied Fidelity never consented to have the case heard by a judge pro tempore pursuant to RCW 2.08.180 and the state constitution, article 4, section 7, and that the judgment against it is void for…”
Charles Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete Cutting & Breaking, Inc., 431 P.3d 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Presumptively, however, the lodestar represents a 10 See RCW 2.08.180. To serve as a judge pro tempore, a retired judge must have retained his or her membership in the bar.”
State v. Sain, 663 P.2d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “4, § 7 provides: *556 A case in the superior court may be tried by a judge, pro tempore, who must be a member of the bar, agreed upon in writing by the parties litigant, or their attorneys of record, approved by the court and sworn to try the case.”
Smith v. Monson, 157 Wash. App. 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “A member of the bar can be appointed only upon the parties’ consent, the court’s approval, and the member’s oath to try the case.”
Mitchell v. Kitsap Cnty., 797 P.2d 516 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “RCW 2.08.180 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A case in the superior court .”
State v. McNairy, 580 P.2d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “RCW 2.08.180 1 and Const, art. 4, § 7, 2 require a written stipulation by the litigants or their attorneys of record before a judge pro tempore may hear a case.”
State v. Belgarde, 815 P.2d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “) RCW 2.08.180, which is virtually identical to the constitutional provision, was also amended to reflect this change effective January 1, 1988.”
Show all 28 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.