Wash. Rev. Code » Title 2 · Chapter 2.60
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020 (2026)

Federal court certification of local law question

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When in the opinion of any federal court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not been clearly determined, such federal court may certify to the supreme court for answer the question of local law involved and the supreme court shall render its opinion in answer thereto.
[ 1965 c 99 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 149 cases (68 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: In Re Elliott, 446 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Elliott, 446 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 12× “RCW 2.60.020, the operative section under which the question has been certified, states: When in the opinion of any federal court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to dispose of such proceeding and the local…”
Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). · cites it 2× “3d 1084 (2002) ( Parents Involved III ), vacated the injunction, and, pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §2.60.020 (2006), certified the state-law question to the Washington Supreme Court, 294 F.”
Jack Potter v. City of Lacey, 46 F.4th 787 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020 . Washington’s certification statute allows certification where “it is necessary to ascertain the POTTER V.”
Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 821 P.2d 18 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “See RCW 2.60.020. Lest any confusion result from our discussion of this issue, we perceive that the question arising in cases like these may be broader than the question framed by the federal court.”
Centurion Props. III, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 375 P.3d 651 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “We accepted review pursuant to RCW 2.60.020. ANALYSIS ¶10 We are asked whether a title insurance company owes a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments.”
Lige Dickson Co. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 635 P.2d 103 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “RCW 2.60.020 reads as follows: "When in the opinion of any federal court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not been clearly determined, such federal court may…”
Am. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Steen, 91 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to RCW 2.60.020 and RAP 16.16, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to this court two questions concerning the annulment of liability insurance policies.”
Am. Cont'l Ins. v. Steen, 91 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to RCW 2.60.020 and RAP 16.16, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to this court two questions concerning the annulment of liability insurance policies.”
Butler v. Balolia, 736 F.3d 609 (1st Cir. 2013). “See Wash. Rev.Code § 2.60.020. Our journey is not yet at an end.”
Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). “After hearing all the evidence and before giving judgment, the District Court, on its own motion, certified to this court questions of law pursuant to RCW 2.60.020 and RAP 16.16. The District Court formulated from the evidence presented at trial a number of findings of fact and…”
Schreib v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 129 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “See RCW 2.60.020. . The court concludes that the arbitrator’s decision does not represent "actual damages,” but that does not preclude Ms.”
In re the Bankr. Petition of Wieber, 347 P.3d 41 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “Because construing the scope of a federal statute is not a question of “the local law of this state,” RCW 2.60.020 does not apply and we should decline to answer the certified question.”
Show all 149 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.