Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.050 (2026)
Who may solemnize
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The following named officers and persons, active or retired, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages, to wit: Justices of the supreme court; judges of the court of appeals; judges of the superior courts; supreme court commissioners; court of appeals commissioners; superior court commissioners; judges and commissioners of courts of limited jurisdiction as defined in RCW 3.02.010; justices of the supreme court of the United States; judges and judicial officers of the federal courts; judges of tribal courts from a federally recognized tribe; and any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization. The solemnization of a marriage by a tribal court judge pursuant to authority under this section does not create tribal court jurisdiction and does not affect state court authority as otherwise provided by law to enter a judgment for purposes of any dissolution, legal separation, or other proceedings related to the marriage that is binding on the parties and entitled to full faith and credit.
[ 2023 c 86 s 1; 2019 c 52 s 2; 2017 c 130 s 1; 2012 c 3 s 4 (Referendum Measure No. 74, approved November 6, 2012); 2007 c 29 s 1; 1987 c 291 s 1; 1984 c 258 s 95; 1983 c 186 s 1; 1971 c 81 s 69; 1913 c 35 s 1; 1890 p 98 s 1; 1883 p 43 s 1; Code 1881 s 2382; 1866 p 82 s 4; 1854 p 404 s 4; RRS s 8441.]
Notes:
Notice—2012 c 3: See note following RCW 26.04.010.
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2000–2020 · leading case: In re Pennington, 142 Wash. 2d 592 (Wash. 2000).
In re Pennington, 142 Wash. 2d 592 (Wash. 2000). “010(1); see also RCW 26.04.050, .120, .130; Melon v. Indus.”
In Re Marriage of Pennington, 14 P.3d 764 (Wash. 2000). “010(1); see also RCW 26.04.050, .120, .130; Meton v. Indus.”
Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water& Sewer Dist., 474 P.3d 547 (Wash. 2020). “Among other things, they may preside over marriages and adoptions, administer oaths, and, under certain circumstances, approve the transfer of a sewage system from a water-sewer district to a county and from a county to a water-sewage district.”
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.