Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.020 (2026)
Definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter:
(1) "Credentialed interpreter" means an interpreter who is credentialed by the administrative office of the courts in a spoken language.
(2) "Judicial officer" means a judge, commissioner, or magistrate of any court.
(3) "Language access plan" means a plan that is publicly available which contains the elements required by RCW 2.43.090.
(4) "Legal proceeding" means any proceeding in any court, and in any type of hearing before a judicial officer, an administrative law judge, or before an administrative board, commission, agency, or licensing body of the state or any political subdivision.
(5) "Person with limited English proficiency" means a person involved in a legal proceeding who cannot readily speak or understand the English language, but does not include deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing individuals who are covered under chapter 2.42 RCW.
(6) "Presiding officer" means the judicial officer or similar official of any court, department, board, commission, agency, or licensing authority of the state or of any political subdivision thereof.
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 358: See note following RCW 2.43.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case: Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010).
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010). “43 RCW did not provide petitioners a statutory right to interpreter services paid for by the government because petitioners were the “initiating” parties of the administrative proceedings and department workers’ compensation determinations are not “legal proceeding[s]” within…”
KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010). “43 RCW did not provide petitioners a statutory right to interpreter services paid for by the government because petitioners were the "initiating" parties of the administrative proceedings and department workers' compensation determinations are not "legal proceedings" within the…”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 2.43.020(2). We note that the trial court complied with RCW 2.”
Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “” RCW 2.43.020(4). Unless the “lack of fluency or facility” in English is apparent, a trial court does not have an affirmative obligation to appoint an interpreter.”
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[39] RCW 2.43.020(3). [40] RCW 2.43.040(2). [41] RCW 2.”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 165 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[7] Ramirez-Dominguez was unable to specify to the trial court which Mixteco language he spoke. We note that during oral arguments, his appellate counsel was also unable to specify which Mixteco language Ramirez-Dominguez spoke.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. App. 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 2.43.020(3). RCW 2.43.040(2). RCW 2.43.”
Elsadig Ahmed v. Glacier Fish Co., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “010 to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons who, because of a non-English speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who consequently cannot be fully protected in legal proceedings unless…”
State Of Washington, V. Roberto Alexander Cruz Yon, 498 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “As relevant here, a “proceeding” could mean “[a]ny procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency,” which would include the filing of a SAG, or “[t]he business conducted by a court or other official body; a hearing,” which would likely exclude a written appeal to…”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “" RCW 2.43.020(4). The right to an interpreter extends to administrative hearings.”
State Of Washington, V Biniam Yirgalem Gebremariem (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “” RCW 2.43.020(4). If a person is entitled to an interpreter, the trial court must appoint a “certified or a qualified interpreter to assist the person throughout the proceedings.”
State Of Washington v. Zahid Aziz Khan (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 2.43.020(4). The superior court concluded that Khan’s statutory right to an interpreter was violated.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.020(2) — 2 cases
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 2.43.020(2). We note that the trial court complied with RCW 2.”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 165 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[7] Ramirez-Dominguez was unable to specify to the trial court which Mixteco language he spoke. We note that during oral arguments, his appellate counsel was also unable to specify which Mixteco language Ramirez-Dominguez spoke.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.020(3) — 5 cases
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 81 (Wash. 2010). “43 RCW did not provide petitioners a statutory right to interpreter services paid for by the government because petitioners were the “initiating” parties of the administrative proceedings and department workers’ compensation determinations are not “legal proceeding[s]” within…”
KUSTURA v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 233 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2010). “43 RCW did not provide petitioners a statutory right to interpreter services paid for by the government because petitioners were the "initiating" parties of the administrative proceedings and department workers' compensation determinations are not "legal proceedings" within the…”
KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[39] RCW 2.43.020(3). [40] RCW 2.43.040(2). [41] RCW 2.”
Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. App. 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 2.43.020(3). RCW 2.43.040(2). RCW 2.43.”
State Of Washington, V. Roberto Alexander Cruz Yon, 498 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “As relevant here, a “proceeding” could mean “[a]ny procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency,” which would include the filing of a SAG, or “[t]he business conducted by a court or other official body; a hearing,” which would likely exclude a written appeal to…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.020(4) — 7 cases
Tatyana Mason, V John Mason & Laurie Robertson, 497 P.3d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “” RCW 2.43.020(4). Unless the “lack of fluency or facility” in English is apparent, a trial court does not have an affirmative obligation to appoint an interpreter.”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 2.43.020(2). We note that the trial court complied with RCW 2.”
State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 165 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[7] Ramirez-Dominguez was unable to specify to the trial court which Mixteco language he spoke. We note that during oral arguments, his appellate counsel was also unable to specify which Mixteco language Ramirez-Dominguez spoke.”
Elsadig Ahmed v. Glacier Fish Co., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “010 to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons who, because of a non-English speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who consequently cannot be fully protected in legal proceedings unless…”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “" RCW 2.43.020(4). The right to an interpreter extends to administrative hearings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 2.43.020(5) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Roberto Alexander Cruz Yon, 498 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “As relevant here, a “proceeding” could mean “[a]ny procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency,” which would include the filing of a SAG, or “[t]he business conducted by a court or other official body; a hearing,” which would likely exclude a written appeal to…”
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.