Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 2.42.130 (2026)
Source of interpreters, qualifications
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If a qualified interpreter for a hearing impaired person is required, the appointing authority shall request a qualified interpreter and/or an intermediary interpreter through the department of social and health services, office of deaf services, or through any community center for hearing impaired persons which operates an interpreter referral service. The office of deaf services and these community centers shall maintain an up-to-date list or lists of interpreters that are certified by the state and/or by the registry of interpreters for the deaf.
(2) The appointing authority shall make a preliminary determination, on the basis of testimony or stated needs of the hearing impaired person, that the interpreter is able in that particular proceeding, program, or activity to interpret accurately all communication to and from the hearing impaired person. If at any time during the proceeding, program, or activity, in the opinion of the hearing impaired person or a qualified observer, the interpreter does not provide accurate, impartial, and effective communication with the hearing impaired person the appointing authority shall appoint another qualified interpreter. No otherwise qualified interpreter who is a relative of any participant in the proceeding may be appointed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2001–2001 · leading case: Christoper T. Duvall v. Cnty. Of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001).
Christoper T. Duvall v. Cnty. Of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001). “RCW 2.42.130. I am not sure that these are the statutes to which Botta referred, but regardless, it is evident to me that determinations about the needs of hearing impaired litigants are inherently discretionary judgments, whether made wholly by the presiding judicial officer or…”
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.