Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.51
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.51.050 (2026)

Evidence creating a rebuttable presumption that the litigation is primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the other party

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At the hearing conducted pursuant to RCW 26.51.040, evidence of any of the following creates a rebuttable presumption that litigation is being initiated, advanced, or continued primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the other party:
(1) The same or substantially similar issues between the same or substantially similar parties have been litigated within the past five years in the same court or any other court of competent jurisdiction; or
(2) The same or substantially similar issues between the same or substantially similar parties have been raised, pled, or alleged in the past five years and were dismissed on the merits or with prejudice; or
(3) Within the last ten years, the party allegedly engaging in abusive litigation has been sanctioned under superior court civil rule 11 or a similar rule or law in another jurisdiction for filing one or more cases, petitions, motions, or other filings, that were found to have been frivolous, vexatious, intransigent, or brought in bad faith involving the same opposing party; or
(4) A court of record in another judicial district has determined that the party allegedly engaging in abusive litigation has previously engaged in abusive litigation or similar conduct and has been subject to a court order imposing prefiling restrictions.
[ 2020 c 311 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2024–2026 · leading case: Nicholas Cabral v. Dustin Glinski (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Isabelle Latour, V. Sean Kuhlmeyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” RCW 26.51.050(1), (3). Here, the court found that Kuhlmeyer litigated the “facts surrounding the Dissolution .”
Nicholas Cabral v. Dustin Glinski (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “But neither previous sanctions nor lack of research is required to find that a party has engaged in abusive litigation under RCW 26.51.050. The trial court found that Glinski filed the actions primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the…”
Beth Anne Cabral v. Dustin Glinski (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “But neither previous sanctions nor lack of research is required to find that a party has engaged in abusive litigation under RCW 26.51.050. The trial court found that Glinski filed the actions primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the…”
Tayme Rose-leavitt, V. Rand Workman (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 26.51.050(1). Here, the trial court concluded that Workman’s litigation was abusive because he repeatedly challenged issues that it had decided.”
David Parsons, V. Tanya Goodman (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “191(3)(e) specifies that “abusive litigation shall not constitute a basis for a finding” of abusive use of conflict, whereas the ALA creates a rebuttable presumption of abusive use of litigation if there is evidence that the same parties have litigated “[t]he same or…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.51.050(1) — 5 cases
Isabelle Latour, V. Sean Kuhlmeyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” RCW 26.51.050(1), (3). Here, the court found that Kuhlmeyer litigated the “facts surrounding the Dissolution .”
Tayme Rose-leavitt, V. Rand Workman (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 26.51.050(1). Here, the trial court concluded that Workman’s litigation was abusive because he repeatedly challenged issues that it had decided.”
David Parsons, V. Tanya Goodman (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “191(3)(e) specifies that “abusive litigation shall not constitute a basis for a finding” of abusive use of conflict, whereas the ALA creates a rebuttable presumption of abusive use of litigation if there is evidence that the same parties have litigated “[t]he same or…”
Nicholas Cabral v. Dustin Glinski (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “But neither previous sanctions nor lack of research is required to find that a party has engaged in abusive litigation under RCW 26.51.050. The trial court found that Glinski filed the actions primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the…”
Beth Anne Cabral v. Dustin Glinski (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “But neither previous sanctions nor lack of research is required to find that a party has engaged in abusive litigation under RCW 26.51.050. The trial court found that Glinski filed the actions primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the…”
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.