Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.28.015 (2026)
Age of majority for enumerated specific purposes
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided under RCW 7.105.100, all persons shall be deemed and taken to be of full age for the specific purposes hereafter enumerated at the age of eighteen years:
(1) To enter into any marriage contract without parental consent if otherwise qualified by law;
(2) To execute a will for the disposition of both real and personal property if otherwise qualified by law;
(3) To vote in any election if authorized by the Constitution and otherwise qualified by law;
(4) To enter into any legal contractual obligation and to be legally bound thereby to the full extent as any other adult person;
(5) To make decisions in regard to their own body and the body of their lawful issue whether natural born to or adopted by such person to the full extent allowed to any other adult person including but not limited to consent to surgical operations;
(6) To sue and be sued on any action to the full extent as any other adult person in any of the courts of this state, without the necessity for a guardian ad litem.
Notes:
Effective dates—2022 c 268: See note following RCW 7.105.010.
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Findings—1992 c 111: See note following RCW 4.08.050.
Severability—1971 ex.s. c 292: See note following RCW 26.28.010.
Mental health treatment: Chapter 71.34 RCW.
Sexually transmitted diseases: RCW 70.24.110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 482 P.3d 276 (Wash. 2021).
In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 482 P.3d 276 (Wash. 2021). “” RCW 26.28.015(1)- (4). Many of these purposes also include the tautological qualification “if otherwise qualified by law.”
Tunstall v. Bergeson, 5 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2000). “See Dissent at 241-43 (dissent criticizes majority’s reliance on RCW 26.28.015 without mentioning other statutes cited by majority).”
State v. Furman, 858 P.2d 1092 (Wash. 1993). “210 and RCW 26.28.015(1) (restricting a juvenile's right to marry); RCW 26.”
Tunstall Ex Rel. Tunstall v. Bergeson, 5 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2000). “The age at which an individual may contract, execute a will, vote, or sue is not relevant to whether he or she has a right to a high school education, and the Legislature has told us just that.”
Triplett v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 166 Wash. App. 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Smith] would not be able to exercise the rights set forth in RCW 26.28.015,” so “[s]he was for all purposes, the equivalent of a minor child at the time she drowned.”
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 643 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 26.28.015(4). A minor could disaffirm such "contracts" during his or her minority or within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority.”
Hibbard v. Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca & O'Hern, 826 P.2d 690 (Wash. 1992). “The State denied her nlaim for the reason that it exceeded the statute of limitations, "pursuant to RCW 26.28.015." 5 On December 2, 1983, *741 Ms.”
State v. Koome, 530 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1975). “015(5) expressly grants to 18-year-olds the right to, inter alia, make decisions regarding medical treatment, neither it nor any other provision of our law either states or implies that persons under 18 do not have that right or the capacity to exercise it, other than, of…”
Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. ES, 199 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “[39] RCW 26.28.015. [40] RCW 13.40.140(10). [41] RCW 9A.”
State v. Baxter, 141 P.3d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Even when performed by trained professionals, circumcision has been criticized by some for the pain it causes and its inherent risk of complications. See, e.g., WALDECK, 72 U.”
Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. E.S., 148 Wash. App. 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 26.28.015. RCW 13.40.140(10). RCW 9A.”
State v. Baxter, 134 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “, Waldeck, 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. at 477-80. Given these risks, performing a circumcision as Baxter did here violates public policy.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.28.015(1) — 2 cases
In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 482 P.3d 276 (Wash. 2021). “” RCW 26.28.015(1)- (4). Many of these purposes also include the tautological qualification “if otherwise qualified by law.”
State v. Furman, 858 P.2d 1092 (Wash. 1993). “210 and RCW 26.28.015(1) (restricting a juvenile's right to marry); RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.28.015(3) — 1 case
State v. Furman, 858 P.2d 1092 (Wash. 1993). “210 and RCW 26.28.015(1) (restricting a juvenile's right to marry); RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.28.015(4) — 1 case
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 643 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 26.28.015(4). A minor could disaffirm such "contracts" during his or her minority or within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.28.015(5) — 5 cases
State v. Koome, 530 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1975). “015(5) expressly grants to 18-year-olds the right to, inter alia, make decisions regarding medical treatment, neither it nor any other provision of our law either states or implies that persons under 18 do not have that right or the capacity to exercise it, other than, of…”
State v. Baxter, 141 P.3d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Even when performed by trained professionals, circumcision has been criticized by some for the pain it causes and its inherent risk of complications. See, e.g., WALDECK, 72 U.”
State v. Baxter, 134 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “, Waldeck, 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. at 477-80. Given these risks, performing a circumcision as Baxter did here violates public policy.”
State v. Hirschfelder, 199 P.3d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Hirschfelder, 148 Wash. App. 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
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.