Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.24.050 (2026)

Revision by court

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All of the acts and proceedings of court commissioners hereunder shall be subject to revision by the superior court. Any party in interest may have such revision upon demand made by written motion, filed with the clerk of the superior court, within ten days after the entry of any order or judgment of the court commissioner. Such revision shall be upon the records of the case, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the court commissioner, and unless a demand for revision is made within ten days from the entry of the order or judgment of the court commissioner, the orders and judgments shall be and become the orders and judgments of the superior court, and appellate review thereof may be sought in the same fashion as review of like orders and judgments entered by the judge.
[ 1988 c 202 s 1; 1971 c 81 s 10; 1909 c 124 s 3; RRS s 86.]

Notes:

Severability—1988 c 202: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1988 c 202 s 97.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 222 cases (81 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Smith, 814 P.2d 652 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 814 P.2d 652 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 38× “shall have the power, authority, and jurisdiction, concurrent with a juvenile court judge, to hear all cases under this chapter and to enter judgment and make orders with the same power, force, and effect as any judge of the juvenile court, subject to motion or demand by any…”
State v. Espinoza, 774 P.2d 1177 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 15× “021, he held that a commissioner is authorized to hear all juvenile cases, subject only to a motion for revision as provided in RCW 2.24.050. The trial proceeded. Respondent Espinoza was found "guilty" of both charges.”
In re the Marriage of Dodd, 120 Wash. App. 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “2d 1024 (2003) (citing RCW 2.24.050; State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 268 , 814 P.”
In Re Marriage of Dodd, 86 P.3d 801 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “3d 121 (2003) (citing RCW 2.24.050; State v. Smith, 117 Wash.2d 263, 268 , 814 P.”
Faciszewski v. Brown, 386 P.3d 711 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶7 Pursuant to RCW 2.24.050, Landlords moved the superior court to revise the commissioner’s ruling.”
In Re the Est. of Larson, 694 P.2d 1051 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 4× “The objectors sought review of the court commissioner's order by a superior court judge, pursuant to RCW 2.24.050. The judge reviewed the record, heard oral argument, and denied the motion.”
Robertson v. Robertson, 54 P.3d 708 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “This case involves the authority of the superior court to extend the time for reviewing a superior court commissioner's order beyond the 10 days set forth in RCW 2.24.050. We hold that the plain language of the statute requires the party seeking review to file a motion for…”
In re the Marriage of Robertson, 113 Wash. App. 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “— This case involves the authority of the superior court to extend the time for reviewing a superior court commissioner’s order beyond the 10 days set forth in RCW 2.24.050. We hold that the plain language of the statute requires the party seeking review to file a motion for…”
State v. Ramer, 151 Wash. 2d 106 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 2.24.050; 8 see also Const, art. IV, § 23.”
State v. Ramer, 86 P.3d 132 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 2.24.050; [8] see also CONST. art. IV, § 23.”
In re the Marriage of Moody, 976 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “2(e) and RCW 2.24.050. In the revision proceeding, Homer attempted to raise new issues and offer new evidence, claiming fraud on the part of Lela and her attorney and illegality of the decree of legal separation and property settlement agreement.”
In Re Marriage of Moody, 976 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “2(e) and RCW 2.24.050. In the revision proceeding, Homer attempted to raise new issues and offer new evidence, claiming fraud on the part of Lela and her attorney and illegality of the decree of legal separation and property settlement agreement.”
Show all 222 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.